waste management model
TRANSCRIPT
A Local Authority Waste Management
Mass Balance Model
David W.J. Greenfield
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements of the University of Brighton, for
the degree of PhD.
May 2010
2
ABSTRACT
The pressure at the turn of the 21
st century for Waste Disposal Authorities to change their
waste disposal systems was both urgent and comprehensive, with emphasis being placed on
moving towards the 3Rs; Reducing, Recycling and Recovering value from Municipal Wastes.
This thesis explores how a mass balance model was created for the Brighton & Hove City
and East Sussex County council Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract, in response to the
pressures for change and need for investment up to 2002. An identification and evaluation of
the drivers for change at the time has been undertaken; with it being demonstrated that
legislation, lack of landfill space and underlying public pressure were the stimulus for
change. A review of the technologies available to implement a systematic overhaul of the
waste facilities is presented with a rationale for chosen technologies. A critical review was
made of tools available to assist local authority waste managers plan for new technologies;
concluding that there were no models fit for purpose. A Mass Balance Model (MBM) is
presented which was developed to allow the councils to plan for a new system of
technologies while meeting the pressures of legislation and public opinion. The MBM
enabled users to model for twenty five years. The model embraces waste growth, numerous
current and future technologies incorporating capacity, throughputs, efficiencies and residuals
to predict recycling, recovery rates, diversion from to landfill and void space required. The
MBM was further developed between 2005 and 2007 to incorporate the impact of new
legislation that required diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill this was the
Landfill Allowance Scheme (LATS). The results from the models conclude that the councils
have had to adopt a mixture of systems and technologies to manage municipal waste whilst
being flexible to future drivers and trends.
3
Contents
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. 9
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. 11
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................. 12
AUTHOR’S DECLARATION ............................................................................................. 13
DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................................................... 14
1. AN INTRODUCTION TO WASTES MANAGEMENT ............................................ 16
1.1. Aim ............................................................................................................................... 17
1.2. Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 17
1.3. What is waste? .............................................................................................................. 18
1.1. Definition of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) ............................................................... 19
1.2. Definition of Household Waste (HW) .......................................................................... 20
1.3. Waste collection responsibilities................................................................................... 21
1.3.1. Waste Collection Authority (WCA) ............................................................................. 21
1.3.2. WCA responsibility for recycling household waste ..................................................... 23
1.4. Responsibility for disposing of household waste.......................................................... 23
1.4.1. Waste Disposal Authorities (WDA) ............................................................................. 23
1.4.2. Unitary Authorities ....................................................................................................... 24
1.4.3. Civic Amenity sites ....................................................................................................... 24
1.5. Quantity and the mass flow of MSW arising in England in 2002/03 ........................... 25
1.6. Composition of MSW ................................................................................................... 26
1.7. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 28
2. DRIVERS FOR CHANGE......................................................................................... 29
2.1. East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Councils................................................................. 29
2.2. Arrangements for the treatment, processing of HW & MSW prior to 2002 ................. 30
2.3. Recycling ...................................................................................................................... 31
2.3.1. Kerbside collection and recycling schemes .................................................................. 31
2.3.2. Civic Amenity (CA) Sites ............................................................................................. 33
2.4. Waste transfer stations .................................................................................................. 34
2.5. Densified Refuse Derived Fuel (dRDF) production ..................................................... 34
2.6. Landfill .......................................................................................................................... 35
2.7. The Legislative drivers for change in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove ................. 35
2.7.1. Making Waste Work ..................................................................................................... 35
4
2.7.2. The Landfill Tax ........................................................................................................... 36
2.7.3. A Way with Waste ........................................................................................................ 37
2.7.4. Waste Strategy 2000 ..................................................................................................... 38
2.7.5. Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies (March 2001) ........................ 38
2.7.6. Waste Not, Want Not .................................................................................................... 39
2.8. European Legislation .................................................................................................... 40
2.8.1. The EU Landfill Directive ............................................................................................ 41
2.8.2. The European Waste Incineration Directive (WID) ..................................................... 42
2.9. Public perception .......................................................................................................... 42
2.10. Next steps for ESCC & BHC ........................................................................................ 42
2.11. The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract................................................................ 43
2.12. Summary of pressures ................................................................................................... 43
3. THE ALTERNATIVES TO LANDFILL DISPOSAL AVAILABLE TO ESCC
AND BHC IN 2002 ................................................................................................................. 45
3.1. Managing MSW according to The Waste Hierarchy .................................................... 45
3.2. Level 1: Waste reduction .............................................................................................. 46
3.3. Level 2: Re-use ............................................................................................................. 47
3.4. Level 3a: Recycling ...................................................................................................... 47
3.4.1. Kerbside sort ................................................................................................................. 48
3.4.2. Co-mingled collection with separation ......................................................................... 49
3.4.3. Two stream co-mingling ............................................................................................... 50
3.4.4. Maximising recycling from household collections ....................................................... 50
3.5. Level 3b: Composting ................................................................................................... 51
3.5.1. Home composting ......................................................................................................... 52
3.5.2. Open composting from source segregated MSW ......................................................... 52
3.5.3. Closed composting ........................................................................................................ 53
3.5.4. The case for composting waste ..................................................................................... 54
3.6. Level 4: Energy recovery with heat and power ............................................................ 54
3.6.1. Mass burn incineration .................................................................................................. 55
3.6.1.1. The process of energy recovery from mass burn incineration............................... 57
3.6.1.2. Emission Control from EFW ................................................................................. 57
3.6.1.3. Case Study: SELCHP ............................................................................................ 58
3.6.2. Anaerobic Digestion ..................................................................................................... 59
3.6.2.1. The Valorga system ............................................................................................... 61
5
3.6.2.2. The Dranco (Dry Anaerobic Composting) system ................................................ 62
3.6.2.3. The Kompogas system........................................................................................... 62
3.6.2.4. Discussion .............................................................................................................. 63
3.6.3. Pyrolysis and thermal gasification ................................................................................ 64
3.6.4. Preferred energy recovery technology .......................................................................... 64
3.7. Level 4 and 5: Landfill and landfill with energy .......................................................... 64
3.7.1. Landraise ....................................................................................................................... 67
3.7.2. The use of landfill gas for the production of energy ..................................................... 67
3.8. Development of a specification for the award of the ESCC & BHC PFI contract ....... 68
3.9. Summary ....................................................................................................................... 70
4. CRITIQUE OF CURRENT WASTE PLANNING MODELS ................................... 71
4.1. Needs analysis for a novel waste flow model ............................................................... 71
4.2. Critical review of existing MSW balance models ........................................................ 73
4.2.1. Cost benefit analysis (CBA) model .............................................................................. 73
4.2.2. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) models ......................................................................... 74
4.2.3. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) ..................................................................... 76
4.3. Assessment of critical review and relevancy to needs of local authorities ................... 77
4.4. Summary of CBA, LCA and MCDA ............................................................................ 79
5. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MASS BALANCE MODEL (MBM)......................... 80
5.1. The Development of the MBM ..................................................................................... 80
5.2. MBM description .......................................................................................................... 81
5.2.1. Input sheet ..................................................................................................................... 82
5.2.2. The MBM Calculation Sheet ........................................................................................ 84
5.2.3. Results sheet.................................................................................................................. 86
5.3. The Creation of a Reference Scenario .......................................................................... 87
5.4. Reference Scenario 1 (RS1) .......................................................................................... 88
5.5. Stage 1: Initial waste mass data (starting data and growth modelling)......................... 88
5.5.1. Raw data for the base year ............................................................................................ 89
5.5.2. Waste growth profiling ................................................................................................. 89
5.5.2.1. Lifestyle choices of the individual......................................................................... 90
5.5.2.2. Exogenous contributing factors ............................................................................. 91
5.5.3. Historical data ............................................................................................................... 91
5.5.4. Generation of a growth profile ...................................................................................... 92
6
5.6. Stage 2: Individual facility and process throughputs .................................................... 94
5.6.1. Material Recycling Facilities (MRFs) .......................................................................... 95
5.6.2. Open composting .......................................................................................................... 97
5.6.3. In-vessel composting .................................................................................................... 97
5.6.4. Energy recovery ............................................................................................................ 98
5.6.4.1. Anaerobic Digestion (AD)..................................................................................... 98
5.6.4.2. Energy from Waste (EFW) .................................................................................. 100
5.6.4.3. Landfill ................................................................................................................ 102
5.6.5. Bring banks ................................................................................................................. 103
5.6.6. Non governmental organisation (NGO) recycling ...................................................... 104
5.6.7. Beneficial use and diversion from landfill .................................................................. 104
5.7. Stage 3: Relative contributions of facilities and processes to overall outputs ............ 104
5.7.1. Use of targets for comparison ..................................................................................... 105
5.7.2. Calculation of the recycling and composting rate....................................................... 106
5.7.3. Calculation of the recovery rate .................................................................................. 106
5.7.4. Comparator of outputs vs. required outcomes ............................................................ 107
5.7.5. Calculation of landfill volume requirements .............................................................. 107
5.8. Stage 4: Testing the MBM .......................................................................................... 108
5.8.1. Mathematical correctness............................................................................................ 108
5.8.2. MBM flexibility .......................................................................................................... 108
5.9. Stage 5: The MBM results sheet and graphical outputs ............................................. 110
5.9.1. Discussion of the results from Scenario RS1 .............................................................. 114
5.9.1.1. Recycling ............................................................................................................. 117
5.9.1.2. Recovery .............................................................................................................. 118
5.9.1.3. Description of operational characteristics of EfW .............................................. 118
5.9.2. Landfill ........................................................................................................................ 119
5.10. Summary ..................................................................................................................... 120
6. THE DEVELOPMENT, TESTING AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF THE
LATS MASS BALANCE MODEL (LMBM). ................................................................... 121
6.1. New Legislation .......................................................................................................... 121
6.1.1. The Waste and Emissions Trading (WET) Act .......................................................... 122
6.1.2. The Landfill Allowances and Trading Scheme (England) Regulations 2004 ............ 124
6.1.3. Landfill Allowances and Trading Scheme (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2005
125
7
6.2. The LATS targets ........................................................................................................ 125
6.3. Introduction of new concepts to the MBM ................................................................. 127
6.3.1. Concept 1: To build sufficient facilities to meet the LATS targets ............................ 127
6.3.2. Concept 2: Trading LATS to meet the targets ............................................................ 128
6.4. Adding new concepts to the MBM, constructing and testing the LMBM .................. 128
6.5. Assumptions used with the testing of the LMBM ...................................................... 129
6.5.1. Waste growth .............................................................................................................. 129
6.5.2. Composition of the waste stream ................................................................................ 129
6.5.3. Completion of key facilities ........................................................................................ 129
6.5.4. Recycling and recovery performance ......................................................................... 130
6.6. Descriptions of scenarios tested through the LMBM ................................................. 130
6.7. Scenario 1.................................................................................................................... 131
6.7.1. Scenario 1A: Base Case with £150 fines and £10 sales.............................................. 131
6.7.2. Scenario 1B Base case with £100 fines and £25 sales ................................................ 133
6.7.3. Scenario 1C Base Case with £50 fines and £50 sales ................................................. 134
6.8. Scenario 2.................................................................................................................... 135
6.8.1. Scenario 2A: one year delay of the EFW with £150 fines and £10 sales ................... 135
6.8.2. Scenario 2B: one year delay of the EFW with £100 fines and £25 sales ................... 137
6.8.3. Scenario 2c: one year delay of the EFW with £50 fines and £50 sales ...................... 137
6.9. Scenario 3.................................................................................................................... 138
6.9.1. A Planning delay of two years .................................................................................... 138
6.10. Analysis of the three scenarios ................................................................................... 140
6.11. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 141
7. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................ 142
7.1. Objectives ................................................................................................................... 143
7.1.2. Objective 2: Explore the drivers for change for local authorities ............................... 146
7.1.2.1. The changing composition of MSW .................................................................... 148
7.1.2.2. The Pre budget reports ......................................................................................... 149
7.1.3. Objective 3: Describe the available technologies for management of wastes ............ 150
7.1.4. The ESCC & BHC PFI facilities ................................................................................ 152
7.1.5. Objective 4: Use the drivers and responsibilities to create a mass balance model
(MBM) and describe the process of building the MBM and testing it .................................. 153
7.1.6. Objective 5: Describe the impact of new legislation on the results of the MBM and the
requirement for a revised model to take account of new drivers. .......................................... 154
8
7.1.7. Objective 6: Explain the improvements & difficulties found whilst undertaking this
thesis 154
7.1.7.1. Improvement no 1: Enabling facilities to be added other than the options given155
7.1.7.2. Improvement no 2: Developing a model comparison system ............................. 155
7.1.7.3. Improvement no 3: Develop a waste composition element ................................. 155
7.2 Further research opportunities .................................................................................... 156
7.2.1 Research option 1: Climate change and green house gas emissions .......................... 156
7.2.2 Research Option 2: Funding commitments and risk posed by entering into a PFI
contract ................................................................................................................................... 157
7.2.3 Research option 3: Waste as a Resource ..................................................................... 157
7.2.4 Research opportunity summary .................................................................................. 158
7.2. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 159
References ............................................................................................................................. 161
Appendix 1 Local Authority Officer Questionnaire ......................................................... 171
Appendix 2: RS1 .................................................................................................................. 173
The RS1 Calculation sheet: ................................................................................................. 175
Appendix 3: The MBM test mass flow diagrams: ............................................................. 185
Appendix 4: The MBM USER MANUAL ......................................................................... 193
Appendix 5: RS1 Calculations sheet formulas .................................................................. 212
Appendix 6: National LATS Survey .................................................................................. 234
9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Percentage distribution of types of waste (by weight) in the UK ………….........
Figure 1.2: Percentage distribution of types of MSW, by weight, in 2002/03 ………………
Figure 1.3: The English Waste Collection Authority political boundary areas……………...
Figure 1.4: Percentage distribution of management of MSW, by weight, in 2002/03 .................
Figure 1.5: Composition of MSW (Parfitt 2002) ..........................................................................
Figure 1.6: An indication of the change in MSW composition over time ....................................
Figure 2.1: The political boundaries within the case study area ...................................................
Figure 2.2: MSW generated by householders in ESCC & BHC between 1995/6 &
2001/2 .......................................................................................................................................
Figure 2.3 Location of civic amenity sites in the East Sussex area 2001 .....................................
Figure 3.1: The Waste Hierarchy (Waste Not want Not 2002) ....................................................
Figure 3.2: MSW composting options (adapted from ETSU 1999) .............................................
Figure 3.3: Le-Harve Open composting site (Greenfield 2001 ....................................................
Figure 3.4: Varen Jarcy Enclosed composting windrows (Greenfield 2001) ...............................
Figure 3.5: A Schematic of a generic EFW Facility (Mercia Waste) ...........................................
Figure 3.6: The VESTA Energy from Waste facility at Rouen (Greenfield 2001) ......................
Figure 3.7. Schematic representation of the single-step process. (Wellinger, 1999)....................
Figure 3.8: Brecht II - DRANCO exterior view (Greenfield 2000) .............................................
Figure 3.9: The profile of double lined landfill (Shevon & Damas 1986) ...................................
Figure 3.10: Beddingham Landfill site base construction (Greenfield 2000) ..............................
Figure 3.11 Beddingham landfill site: view into a new cell being prepared for lining ................
Figure 3.12: Le-Harve landraise site cell construction (Greenfield 2001) ...................................
Figure 3.13 Beddingham landfill site gas extraction pipe network (Greenfield 2000) ................
Figure 4.1: System boundaries for measuring and regulating environmental
performance ...............................................................................................................................
Figure 4.2: Elements from which a national separation strategy can be compiled. .....................
Figure 5.1: The components of the integrated waste management system for RS1 .....................
Figure 5.2: Decision tree for the mass flow of MSW through the facilities .................................
Figure 5.3 Housing growth scenario for ESCC and BHC ............................................................
Figure 5.4 Growth rate scenarios used for sensitivity analysis……………………………..
Figure 5.5 AD mass balance diagram (Organic Waste Systems 2000) ........................................
Figure 5.6: Mass flow diagram for parameters to be used in EFW section RS1 ..........................
Figure 5.7: Mass Flow diagram for Option 1 (t= tonnes)…………………………...………
Figure 5.8: MBM Results for RS1: Total recycling and recovery rate per annum………....
Figure 5.9: MBM Results for RS1: The total waste treated annually through all facilities...
Figure 5.10: RS1 Recovery targets for VSD solution ..................................................................
Figure 5.11: Landfill void space required for RS1 .......................................................................
Figure 6.1: BMW needed to be diverted to meet LATS targets in England at 2% per
annum waste growth ..................................................................................................................
Figure 6.2: A comparison of BMW required to be diverted from landfill to meet LATS
targets for a 2% and 3% waste growth scenario ........................................................................
19
20
22
25
26
27
29
30
33
46
51
52
53
56
57
60
62
65
66
67
67
68
75
77
82
85
93
94
98
100
109
115
116
118
119
123
124
10
Figure 6.3: Summary of Scenario 1 modelling for LATS ............................................................
Figure 6.4: Scenario 2A LATS deficit or surplus in ESCC if the EFW is delayed by 1
yr...
Figure 6.5: Comparison of BMW to landfill and LATS allowances if the EFW is
delayed by 2 years .....................................................................................................................
Figure 6.6: Sensitivity analysis results of scenario 3 cost of LATS if the EFW is
delayed by 2 years .....................................................................................................................
Figure 6.7: The fine or income attributable each year as a result of scenario 1A, 2A
&3A..
Figure 7.1 Mass flow of 2007/8 English MSW arisings (tonnes per annum)……….......
Figure 7.2: An illustration of the potential Mechanical Biological Treatment
options…….....................................................................................................................
132
135
139
140
141
144
151
Figure 7.3: The EfW and MBT construction pipeline (IESE 2009)…………………… 152
Figure 7.4: Artists impression of the new ERF at
Newhaven…………................................
153
11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Collection authority responsibilities…………………………………………….. 22
Table 1.2: Comparison of recycling activities in England between 2001 & 2003…………. 26
Table 2.1: Summary of recycling schemes in the area…………………………………… 32
Table 2.2: ESCC & BHC HWRS statistics for 2000/01……………………………………. 33
Table 2.3: Key Commitments in ―A Way with Waste‖……………………………………. 37
Table 2.4: Statutory Performance Standards for the WCAs and WDAs…………………… 39
Table 2.5: Recommendations for a new strategy…………………………………………... 40
Table 2.6: The Landfill Directive Targets for the UK ……………………………………... 41
Table 3.1: Measures of emission pollution control………………………………………… 58
Table 3.2: Commercial high-solids anaerobic digestion plants……………………………. 61
Table4.1: Priority factors for ease of use by local authority officers ……………………… 72
Table 4.2: A critical view of existing waste management models ………………………… 78
Table 5.1: The components of the integrated waste management system for MBM ……. 83
Table 5.2: Base-data used in MBM …................................................................................... 85
Table 5.3: An extract from the MBM results sheet ………………………………………
Table 5.4: MSW arising and growth rates for all ESCC and BHC authorities 1997-2002 ...
86
91
Table 5.4: The MBM Base Data Table (BDT)……………………………………............... 92
Table 5.5: Facility capacity and efficiencies used within RS1……………………………..
Table 5.6: EFW parameter assumption for RS1 for the year 2015/16 ……………..………
95
101
Table 5.7: Volume of one tonne of waste being sent to landfill …………………………… 103
Table 5.8: Output categories found in RS1………………………………………………… 105
Table 5.9: Summary of results from MBM Scenario 1-8 testing ….………………………. 109
Table 5.10: The MBM Result sheet for the RS1 scenario (part 1)………………………... 111
Table 5.11: The MBM Result sheet for the RS1 scenario (part 2)………………………... 112
Table 5.12: The MBM Result sheet for the RS1 scenario (part 3)………………………... 113
Table 5.13: The facilities procured through the PFI contract using RS1…………………. 117
Table 6.1: The English Landfill Directive targets ………………...……………………….. 123
Table 6.2: The rules for Banking and Borrowing LATS…………………………………… 126
Table 6.3: Base case capacity and construction timelines………………………………….. 130
Table 6.4: The scenarios tested to demonstrate the impact of LATS price & facility delay.. 131
Table 6.5: Scenario 1A results: fines £150 per tonne & sales at £10 per tonne……………. 132
Table 6.6: Scenario 1B results: fines £100 per tonne & sales at £25 per tonne……………. 133
Table 6.7: Scenario 1C results: fines £50 per tonne and sales at £50 per tonne…………… 134
Table 6.8: Scenario 2A results: fines £150 per tonne & sales at £10 per tonne…………… 136
Table 6.9: Scenario 2B results: fines £100 per tonne & sales at £25 per tonne……………. 137
Table 6.10: Scenario 2C results: fines £50 per tonne and sales at £50 per tonne………….. 138
Table 7.1: Analysis of Kerbside collection types ………………………………………….. 145
Table 7.2 Table of actions and potential for waste minimisation…………………………... 147
Table 7.3: The size of the waste to energy opportunity…………………………………….. 151
12
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many people to whom I am indebted to for support during the course of this work,
to all of them I am very grateful, in particular, I would like to thank:
• Prof Marie Harder, for believing in me when many did not and encouraging and
supporting me throughout the many years,
• My wife Julie Greenfield, for her patience, love and support throughout the long
weekends and nights,
• Prof Alison Bruce, as a supervisor and critical analyser who was not afraid to
speak her mind and without whom I would not have completed the thesis,
• Dr Ryan Woodard, for his assistance in the structure of the thesis and his honesty
as a colleague and friend,
• Prof Chris Coggins, for his critical assessment that proved most useful,
• East Sussex County Council and Brighton & Hove City Council staff and
colleagues for their insights and openness, and finally,
• Dr Andrew Larner for allowing me the opportunity to complete this thesis, whilst
holding down a full time job.
13
AUTHOR’S DECLARATION
I declare that the research contained in this thesis, unless otherwise formally indicated within
the text, is the original work of the author. The thesis has not been previously submitted to
this or any other university for a degree, and does not incorporate any material already
submitted for a degree.
Signed
David W. J. Greenfield
Date: 1st May 2010
14
DEFINITIONS
“Aerobic Digestion” the decomposition of waste under microbial action in the presence of
oxygen
“Anaerobic Digestion” the decomposition of waste under microbial action in the absence of
oxygen
“Bring Bank” a facility provided for the deposition of recyclable materials by the general
public
“Clinical Waste” has the meaning given in paragraph (2) of the Controlled Waste
Regulations 1992
“Commercial Waste” has the meaning given in section 75 (7) of the EPA
“Composting” the autothermic and thermophilic decomposition of separately collected
biodegradable waste in the presence of oxygen and under controlled conditions by the action
of micro- and macro-organisms in order to produce compost
“DEFRA” the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
“Digestate” the solid compost-like material resulting from the processing of waste by
anaerobic digestion
“dRDF” densified refuse derived fuel
“Energy Recovery” recovery of energy from Waste by:
(a) incineration; or
(b) any other combustion process; or
(c) by anaerobic digestion
“EPA” the Environmental Protection Act 1990
“Household Waste”
(a) waste from the household collection rounds which the WCAs have a duty to collect
under s45 (1)(a) of the EPA
(b) waste from bulky household waste collection, hazardous household waste collection,
household clinical waste collection and separate garden waste collection;
15
(c) waste from street sweeping and litter collections collected by or on behalf of councils
under s89 (1)a and 89(2) of the EPA; and
(d) waste from Household Waste Recycling Sites excluding construction and demolition
waste deposited by the general public at any household waste recycling site;
“Kerbside Schemes” any regular collection of recyclable materials by house-to-house
collection from households (excluding services provided on demand)
“Landfill” has the meaning attributed to it by section 65(1) of the Finance Act 1996
“MRF” a materials recovery facility where such of the recyclable materials are either
mechanically or manually separated and bulked up prior to reprocessing
“PFI” HM Government‘s Private Finance Initiative
“Recovery” either or recycling, composting; and energy recovery
“Recycled Materials” materials resulting from the reprocessing of waste physically,
chemically or biologically into a product whether for the original purpose or not and which
material has been delivered to an end market
“Recycling Credit” a payment made under Section 52(1), (3) and/or (5) of the EPA
“WCA” a Waste Collection Authority as defined by section 30(2) of the EPA within the
Councils‘ Area
“WDA” a Waste Disposal Authority as defined by section 30(3) of the EPA
16
1. AN INTRODUCTION TO WASTES MANAGEMENT
Ever since humans have lived in organised communities, waste management has been a
necessity of human life (Fenton 1975, Rushbrook & Finnecy 1987). Disposing of waste has
always been a challenge, early attempts included the use of a midden; an old English word,
derived from Norse, meaning rubbish dump (Gray 2002). The East Chisenbury midden
situated on Salisbury Plain dates back to the first millennium B.C. (McOmish 1996) and
would be classified under current legislation as a landfill site. Waste management techniques
have changed over time from the midden to the industrial revolution: hills consisting of slate
and oil-shale wastes (Gray 2002), having given way to present day techniques of landfill,
incineration and the opportunity to recycle.
Waste has always been seen as a potential income, indeed the phrase ―where there‘s muck
there‘s brass‖ is universally known. However, gaining this value is more difficult; Fenton
described finding the ―gold in waste‖ as being as elusive as a cure for cancer (Fenton 1975).
In twenty-first century Britain the cost of waste management to the public purse is high. It is
estimated that collectively, the responsible bodies within local authorities spend nearly £3
billion a year on managing waste from households (DEFRA 2002). This cost is set to increase
significantly as legislation drives waste away from landfills.
This thesis contextualises the drivers for change, researches and explores the pressures and
solutions. It introduces a case study area and presents two iterations of a new Mass Balance
Model (MBM) developed by the author for one of the responsible authorities; a waste
disposal authority (WDA). The model enables planning for the management of wastes
through disposal, or treatment of wastes generated by homo-sapiens‘ daily living practices.
The first three chapters will present the drivers, metrics and technologies considered up to
2004 that gave rise to development of the MBM, this described in chapter four. The
remaining chapters will contextualise the impacts of new legislation and the requirement for a
revised MBM.
17
1.1. Aim
Waste is defined by the UK government as any ―substance which constitutes scrap material
or an effluent or other unwanted surplus substance arising from the application of a process,
or any substance or article which requires to be disposed of as being broken, worn out,
contaminated or otherwise spoiled‖ (EPA 1990). This definition applied to over 330 million
tonnes of material in the UK in 2002/3.
The focus of the research is waste generated by households and the small proportion of
commercial and industrial waste that are collected and disposed of by local authorities in the
UK. This material is commonly defined as Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) (Read 1999), and
amounted to 29.39 million tonnes in 2002/3 (Environment Agency 2003), representing
approximately 10% of total gross waste. Managing nearly 30million tonnes per annum
requires exceptional planning and logistical input. To support this, the aim of this thesis is to
create, test and apply a Local Authority Mass Balance Model (MBM) that will enable
responsible local authority officers to plan for the future management of municipal solid
waste with a greater degree of understanding of the risks and logitistics.
1.2. Objectives
To plan for the management of waste, an understanding of the options, drivers, barriers and
concepts is required. The generation and disposal of waste has become an important policy
concern in all industrialised economies (Read 1999). Considerable work has been undertaken
since the early 1900‘s to manage waste and the systems and technologies that have been
implemented by councils range from the rag and bone man to waste destructors (Woodard
2002). Waste management is an important, complex and necessary service to ensure the
environment that we dwell in is clean and safe, the thesis has the following objectives:
Objective 1: Indentify the roles and responsibilities of wastes management and
impacts thereof
Objective 2: Explore the drivers for change for local authorities
Objective 3: Explore the available technologies for management of wastes in 2002
18
Objective 4: Use the drivers and responsibilities to create a mass balance model
(MBM) and describe the process of building the MBM and testing it
Objective 5: Identify the impact of new legislation on the results of the MBM and the
requirement for a revised model to take account of new drivers.
Objective 6: Explain the improvements and difficulties found whilst undertaking this
thesis
An analysis of whether these objectives were achieved during the research will be presented
in Chapter 7.
1.3. What is waste?
Waste is defined as ―any substance or object which the holder disposes of or is required to
dispose of pursuant to the provisions of national law in force‖ (Council Directives
75/442/EEC and 78/319/EEC). The UK government interpretation was set out the in the
Environmental Protection Act 1990 as:
(a) any substance which constitutes a scrap material or an effluent or other unwanted
surplus substance arising from the application of any process; and
(b) any substance or article which requires to be disposed of as being broken, worn
out, contaminated or otherwise spoiled (EPA 1990)
By 1991 the EU had amended this definition to ―any substance or object in the categories set
out in Annex 1 to the Directive 91/156/EEC, which the holder discards or intends to discard‖
(DOE Circular 1992). Waste in the UK is split into eight categories, as shown in Figure 1.1.
The waste is shown as a percentage of weight arising, and not volume, which is sometimes
used for quantifying wastes. If volume were to be used, then the proportional split of waste in
Figure 1.1 would change. For example, plastic agricultural film is exceptionally light, but
extremely voluminous (Lee 2002). The largest sources of waste in the UK are from mining,
quarrying, construction and demolition activities, collectively responsible for creating 61% of
all waste. In 1990 the EEC introduced the definition of ―controlled waste‖, which defined
household, industrial and commercial wastes (DOE circular 1992). It can be seen by Figure
1.1 that controlled waste, which has subsequently become colloquially known as Municipal
Solid Waste (MSW), equates to 21% of all wastes or 114 million tonnes arising per annum.
19
The proportion of MSW managed by councils in England is 9%, the MSW arising and
management of wastes now and into the future, in one geographical area, will be the focus of
thesis.
Figure 1.1: Percentage distribution of types of waste (by weight) in the UK (DEFRA 2004)
To understand the proportion of MSW that WDAs manage, it is necessary to examine the
definitions of waste. Defining waste is important to allow an understanding of who is
responsible for managing that waste, calculating targets and allowing comparisons of costs
and service on like-for-like basis. Until the definition is confirmed ambiguity will remain
over who is responsible for what.
1.1. Definition of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
There has been much comment on the definitions of MSW, Burnley states that MSW is
defined in terms of the waste collection operation rather than in terms of source or
composition (Burnley 2001), Read defines MSW as any ―substance or object which the
holder discards or intends to discard‖ (Read 1991). The European Commission defines MSW
as ―waste from households, as well as other waste, which, because of its nature or
composition, is similar to waste from households‖ (Council Directive 1999/31/EC).
The EC definition has been accused of being too ambiguous (Reed 2004, Burnley 2001) as it
does not qualify waste by type rather by source, defining waste by composition would allow
20
for a much greater analysis of materials and possible uses. DEFRA used the Council
Directive 1999/31/EC definition in the Waste Emissions Trading Act 2003 (WET act 2003),
however, section 6 of the LATS Guidance published by DEFRA in August 2004 stated that
"The Government's view is that the definition … encompasses all waste under the control of
the local authorities be they waste disposal, waste collection or unitary authorities‖ (DEFRA
2004). This research will use the 2004 definition of MSW; waste under the control of the
local authority as defined by DEFRA, as that is the definition that WDAs will use for
reporting and managing waste. MSW is divided into different generation categories to
understand the source and subsequent composition of the wastes, figure 1.2 shows the seven
categories usually used.
Figure 1.2: Percentage distribution of types of MSW, by weight, in 2002/03 (DEFRA 2004)
The proportional split of the components of the 29.3 million tonnes MSW collected in
England in 2002/03 are shown in Figure 1.2, an increase of 1.8 per cent over the 28.8 million
tonnes collected in 2001/02.
1.2. Definition of Household Waste (HW)
Household Waste (HW) comprises 88% of MSW and accounts for 9% of all wastes in the
UK (DEFRA 2004). The Controlled Waste Regulations (CWR) 1992, Section 1 and 2 define
household waste as waste from:
21
(a) Domestic property, that is to say, a building or self-contained part of a building
which is used wholly for the purposes of living accommodation;
(b) a caravan (as defined in section 29(1) of the [1960 c. 62.] Caravan Sites and
Control of Development Act 1960) which usually and for the time being is situated on
a caravan site (within the meaning of that Act);
(c) a residential home;
(d) premises forming part of a university or school or other educational
establishment;
(e) premises forming part of a hospital or nursing home
Further to this definition, in the 1992 DOE circular, clarification of what was meant by
premises was given as everything from a charity to a Royal Palace (DOE 1992). It is not
necessary to explore the intricate details of the definition, suffice to say that the definition of
household waste can be interpreted in many ways. For the purpose of this research household
waste will constitute any waste that fits the criteria in the Controlled Waste Regualtions 1992
and is under the control of the local authority or its agent, again as this is the definition that
will be needed to calculate and report on targets.
1.3. Waste collection responsibilities
Once the definition of waste has been defined, it is necessary to understand who is
responsible for the collection of MSW. Waste collection has its origins in the 1936 Public
Health Act (Price 2001), where it was the responsibility of councils to collect potentially
polluting waste, the responsibility evolved so that Waste Collection Authorities (WCAs) now
have the statutory duty of collecting household waste free of charge (DoE, 1975).
1.3.1. Waste Collection Authority (WCA)
A Waste Collection Authority (WCA) is defined in the EPA 1990 Part II Para 30 (3) as ―any
district or borough in England, and any borough in London, including the City of London”.
In 2002 there were 354 WCAs in England, as shown in Figure 1.3, of these 81 were unitary
authorities and the remaining 273 were situated within the 40 County Council areas that are
22
WDAs. Figure 1.3 shows the political boundaries of all WCA‘s and indicates the diverse
geographical size which can lead to significant variation in application of responsibility.
Figure 1.3: The English Waste Collection Authority political boundary areas (including
unitary councils) (LGA 2000)
The responsibilities for WCAs are contained within the EPA; Part II Para 45 (1); Table 1.1
shows the extent of responsibility for collecting waste.
It shall be the duty of each waste collection authority—
(a) to arrange for the collection of household waste in its area except waste—
(i) which is situated at a place which in the opinion of the authority is so isolated or
inaccessible that the cost of collecting it would be unreasonably high, and
(ii) as to which the authority is satisfied that adequate arrangements for its disposal
have been or can reasonably be expected to be made by a person who controls the
waste; and
(b) if requested by the occupier of premises in its area to collect any commercial waste from
the premises, to arrange for the collection of the waste.
Table 1.1: Collection authority responsibilities (EPA, 1990, Part II Para 45 (1))
23
WCAs therefore have a duty to collect waste from everywhere that generates household
waste, unless inaccessible, as well as waste from commercial premises, if requested.
1.3.2. WCA responsibility for recycling household waste
The EPA 1990 states that each WCA will have a duty, as respects household and commercial
waste arising in its area – to (a) carry out an investigation with a view to deciding what
arrangements are appropriate for dealing with the waste by separating, baling or otherwise
packaging it for the purpose of recycling it (EPA, 1990, Part II Para 49, 1). This gives the
WCA the duty to recycle waste arising in its area and consequently recycle it. Questions
remain over who is responsible for and how municipal solid waste should be collected and
recycled and will be explored in Section 1.4.
1.4. Responsibility for disposing of household waste
The responsibility for disposing of the waste presented by the WCAs is set out in EPA, where
it states that Waste Disposal Authorities (WDA) will be responsible (a) for the disposal of the
controlled waste collected in its area by the waste collection authorities; (EPA Part II Para
51 (1)). This allows Waste Disposal Authorities (WDAs) to configure a solution for
disposing of waste that is of a larger scale and has the potential to benefit from economies of
scale in any forward purchasing plans.
1.4.1. Waste Disposal Authorities (WDA)
Waste Disposal Authorities (WDAs) in their current configuration were created as a result of
the EPA 1990 and are defined as any non-metropolitan county in England, the area of the
London Waste disposal authority, the city of London, the Metropolitan County of Greater
Manchester and the greater Metropolitan area of Merseyside (EPA Part II Para 30 (1)). The
responsibility for the management of the disposal of waste lies with the WDAs, and in the
twentieth century the predominant technique for treatment has been to landfill it (Fenton
1975, Petts 1991, Read 1999). There are alternative technologies and systems available for
24
the management of wastes, but they have previously been considered unproven and costly.
Drivers to move away from landfill will be explored in Chapter 3.
1.4.2. Unitary Authorities
Between 1992 and 2002, the Local Government Commission for England reviewed the
structure of local government. The results of the Commission were controversial and by 1998
had resulted in the abolition of five county councils; Avon, Berkshire, Cleveland,
Hereford and Worcester and Humberside and the creation of unitary authorities covering
many urban areas of England, including cities like Bristol, Brighton & Hove, Hull, Leicester,
Derby, Nottingham, Stoke-on-Trent and Plymouth (Jones et al, 2004), by 2002/03 there were
81 Unitary Authorities. The significant difference in structure is that a Unitary Authority is
both a WCA and a WDA, meaning they were now responsible for the collection and disposal
of wastes (Read 1990). The implications for waste management were significant as these
new authorities had, in most cases previously only been responsible for collecting waste.
There was a real risk that the Unitary Authorities would not have the skill set to manage the
disposal of MSW.
1.4.3. Civic Amenity sites
The Civic Amenity Act 1967, updated and amended by the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act of
1978 created the responsibility to provide Civic Amenity sites (CAS) The aim was to avoid
fly-tipping of bulky wastes (including private abandoned vehicles) in the countryside
(Coggins 2002). After 1974 responsibility passed to WDAs (including Unitary Authorities)
and as a result of the EPA Part II Para 51 (1), it was necessary for WDAs to allow ―for places
to be provided at which persons resident in its area may deposit their household waste and
for the disposal of waste so deposited‖. The waste generated at a CAS does not require
collection as it is presented to the council by the public, but separation and treatment on site
are required, which means management of the public is essential to ensure sufficient division
of materials. In 2002/3 4.2 million tonnes of waste was managed by CAS in England,
equating to 15% of MSW a relatively large quantity of waste that is delivered by the
householder to a site, giving operators the opportunity to dictate what waste is recycled. At
this time there was also a propensity at this time to change the name to Household Waste
25
Recycling Site or Centre (HWRS or HWRC), to reflect the move towards recycling, rather
than disposal.
1.5. Quantity and the mass flow of MSW arising in England in 2002/03
The definition of MSW has been stated as that in the control of the local authorities. To
understand the total amount of waste that local authorities have responsibility for it is
necessary to look at the source of the data. Each WCA and WDA is required to submit a
quarterly return to the Environment Agency and DEFRA categorising the amount and method
of management per material and system of collection. Figure 1.4 shows the final destination
for the 29.3 million tonnes of MSW collected (DEFRA 2004)
Figure 1.4: Percentage distribution of management of MSW, by weight, in 2002/03 (DEFRA
2004)
Analysis of Figure 1.4 shows that 22 million tonnes of MSW went to landfill; 2.6 million
tonnes were recovered through incineration, whilst 4.6 mtpa were recycled or composted.
Table 1.2 compares the recycling achieved in 2002/03 with 2001/02 and shows that all
variables are interdependent and that change in recycling practice has a huge impact on waste
being treated by other methods, this could potentially alter some of the need for some of the
technologies:
26
Table 1.2: Comparison of recycling activities in England between 2001 and 2003 (DEFRA
2004)
Analysis of Table 1.2 shows that an extra 700,000 tonnes of MSW was recycled or
composted in 2002/03 compared to the previous year, this equates to a 18% increase in one
year, a feat that would need to be replicated in a number of years to meet the targets set out in
Section 2.4
1.6. Composition of MSW
The MSW collected and disposed of in England is broadly categorised as collection,
recycling and disposal, as per the responsibilities for collecting it. However these categories
can be further sub-divided into biological waste, paper, plastics, metal, textiles and other.
Figure 1.5: Composition of MSW (Parfitt 2002)
20%
19%
17%
9%
7%
5%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3% 3% 2%
Garden waste
Paper and board
Kitchen waste
General household sweepings
Glass
Wood/Furniture
Scrap metal/white goods
Dense plastic
Soil
Plastic film
Textiles
Metal cans/foil
Disposable nappies
27
Figure 1.5 shows that 37% of the waste discarded by households is garden and food waste,
whilst 19% is paper and cardboard and 9% is glass.
The use of a compositional analysis is crucial to preparing plans for the collection and
disposal of waste because it enables councils to target the materials that are most common or
have the highest value. Brunner and Ernst (1985) conclude that analysis of waste is essential
to:
Understand the potential for recycling or for treatment and disposal capacities
Design waste treatment processes properly
Quantify the emissions to the environment from waste management practice
However, with the responsibilities for recycling meaning individual materials can be targeted,
it would appear that different collection practices need to be used for different wastes (Read
1999). Figure 1.6 shows a historical waste analysis of the way composition of the waste
generated by households has changed over the 20th
century.
Figure 1.6: An indication of the change in MSW composition over time (Wastewatch 2004)
Interpretation of Figure 1.6 indicates that the majority of waste generated at the end of the
nineteenth century was dust and cinders. By the end of the twentieth century, this category of
waste no longer existed and had been replaced by a significant increase in organic and paper
28
wastes. Indeed in a sixteen year period between 1986 -2002 the proportion of dust and
cinders changed from being 10% of the waste stream to 0%, this demonstrates a major
societal change, resulting from evolution a coal or wood fire to central heating in households.
A comparison between Figure 1.5 and Figure 1.6 shows the percentage of kitchen organic
waste rose from 25% in 1985/6 to 39% in 2002, this highlights how quickly individual
materials can become more significant in the way waste should be collected. The two figures
show the waste composition changes over time, to enable management of waste in such a
way that systems for collection and disposal are relevant, it is therefore necessary to
continually monitor the composition of wastes, indeed, Tyson et al states that in planning for
new infrastructure the need to analyse waste generated is essential (Tyson et al 1996). The
analysis of waste is crucial to anticipate future changes and the fact the snapshot in time when
the composition analysis was made is not certain but only indicative.
1.7. Conclusion
Waste is a substance that is a result of our daily life. It has been demonstrated that waste has
been managed since at least the first century BC and that techniques have changed over that
period. In the UK, the 30 million tonnes of MSW generated by householders are the
responsibility of local government, with WCAs and WDAs needing to manage waste
according to the ―waste hierarchy‖ prevent, reuse, recycle, recover and dispose. Waste has
been shown to be difficult to define, leading to various interpretations, some of which are in
the process of being clarified by government. The potential investment in waste infrastructure
has been shown to be very significant and planning for the future needs of the community is
paramount given the way waste composition can change.
The next chapter will explore the drivers for change facing councils in England at the turn of
the twentieth century and present a case study area; East Sussex County Council and
Brighton & Hove City Council.
29
2. DRIVERS FOR CHANGE
This chapter will present the area where the research was undertaken; East Sussex County
Council (ESCC) and Brighton & Hove Unitary Council (BHC) who decided to work together
to benefit from economies of scale. An overview of the case study area and the status of
waste management services and facilities in 2001 will be presented; the drivers for change
will then be explored up to 2002. Having established the drivers for change, chapter three
will explore the technical options available to the councils. The drivers for change and
facilities in place in 2002 will then be used to demonstrate the conditions that led to the
councils needing the author to create the Mass Balance Model, presented in chapter four.
2.1. East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Councils
The two WDAs of ESCC and BHC have responsibility for disposing of waste produced by
households within their boundaries (EPA 1990), the geographical area is shown in Figure 2.1.
The combined population in July 2000 was approximately 758,700 (ONS) and was expected
to grow to 786,000 by 2015 (WLP). It is an area that is characterised by coastal towns and
cities; Eastbourne, Hastings and Brighton & Hove, with the 58% of the county area residents
living in these areas (WLP 2001).
Figure 2.1: The political boundaries within the case study area (ESCC 2001)
The councils have over 50 miles of coastline, 6 of which are designated as Heritage Coast.
East Sussex has 86 Conservation Areas and nearly 5,700 listed buildings with an additional
Brighton & Hove
Lewes
Wealden
Eastbourne
Hastings
Rother
30
308 Scheduled Ancient Monuments and a further 670 sites designated as Archaeologically
Sensitive Areas (WLP 2001). East Sussex is made up of six local authorities; the County
Council and five district and borough councils (Eastbourne, Hastings, Lewes, Rother and
Wealden). Brighton Borough Council & Hove Borough Council merged to form Brighton &
Hove Unitary Council in 1997. The area is regarded as affluent; the House prices in East
Sussex almost doubled between 1997 and 2002 to a county average of nearly £128,000 for a
semi-detached property in 2002. Average prices remain highest in Lewes (£151,300) where
they are 50% higher than the lowest priced area, Hastings (£100,800) (ESCC).
The population of East Sussex is are predominantly white and the percentage of ethnic
minorities is changing ever so slightly, in 1991 the percentage of non-white residents was 1.3,
compared to a national average of 6.2, by 2001, this had grown to 2.3% in East Sussex and
9.1% in England, this would indicate that while East Sussex has a predominantly lower
proportion of non-whites, the rate of increase in that population is faster than in England.
2.2. Arrangements for the treatment, processing of HW & MSW prior to 2002
The two authorities have been managing waste since 1974, however it only since 1997 that
both were WDAs and responsible for disposing of waste. Most of the existing waste
management infrastructure was based in the county area of East Sussex as they had
responsibility for the waste arising from Brighton & Hove prior to 1997. By 2002/3 MSW
arising had reached 388,453 tonnes, of which approximately 371,000 tonnes was HW. Prior
to then the amount of waste generated by households in the area is shown in Figure 2.2;
Figure 2.2: MSW generated by householders in ESCC and BHC 1995/6 and 2001/2 (ESCC
2001)
31
Interpretation of figure 2.2 shows that MSW in the area grew by 9.5% between 1995 and
2002; a trend of waste growth of 1.2% per annum. The reality is that the waste growth profile
year by year cannot be characterised as a trend, rather, as demonstrated in Figure 2.2, an
intermittent growth profile. The cause of these anomalies are many and varied and are
explored in chapter 4, however the underlying trend for waste arisings in the area does show
that waste generated is growing. The graph does not show the underlying practices in the way
that waste is managed; the following sections will indicate the management practices and
facilities available at the end of the century, re-use and minimisation are not explored in this
section, due to minimal activity.
2.3. Recycling
There are no reprocessing facilities for metal, paper, cardboard, glass, plastics, or textiles
within the area and with the exception of paper taken to Kent, materials are generally
transported to plants in Wales, the Midlands and the North. However, the activities
undertaken in 2000 resulted in recycling rates for the area of around 11% (DEFRA 2002).
Both Wealden District Council and Lewes District Council operate a Material MRF in their
own Districts, with little opportunity to expand on their existing sites (WLP 2000). The
licensed MRF‘s in East Sussex are at Bellbrook, in Uckfield, able to handle 13,500 tonnes per
annum (tpa) and North Street in Lewes, capable of handling 7,000 tpa (PFI OBC 2000).
Some recyclables from the Councils‘ area are taken to West Sussex, where they were bulked
up at Sompting MRF for long-haul transport to reprocessing plants (WLP 2000).
2.3.1. Kerbside collection and recycling schemes
A summary of the materials collected by the WCAs and WDA is given in Table 2.1. The
districts and boroughs had different systems in place for collecting recycling; Wealden DC
had two kerbside collection schemes serving a total of 23,600 properties, known as the
Compost and Recycle Our Waste Now (―CROWN‖) scheme (Wealden DC 2001). In
Eastbourne BC a kerbside scheme for paper and cans covering 8,600 properties was in
operation. Rother DC had no kerbside scheme in place prior to 2003. Hastings BC had
operated a kerbside collection scheme for paper serving 26,500 properties from 2001, whilst
Lewes DC introduced a fortnightly kerbside collection scheme to cover 2,500 properties in
Lewes on 1st March 2002.
32
BHC commenced a pilot kerbside opt-in scheme for paper only in May 2001 (Paperchasers),
which initially targeted 11,000 households and extended to another 9,000 households in
November 2001 (PFI OBC 2000). Magpie, a not-for-profit organisation, provided a kerbside
scheme for a range of recyclables. It was an ―opt-in‖ scheme and customers paid Magpie
direct, it was unusual at the time as the cost to the resident was outside of their Council Tax.
Table 2.1: Summary of recycling schemes in the area (WLP, 2000 & PFI OBC 2000)
Home composting is actively encouraged in some areas, with some councils providing
subsidised composting bins and advice on composting. The levels of recycling and facilities
available to the councils are limited and account for a small proportion of the management of
the wastes in the area. Most MSW is collected in black bags or bins and transported to
disposal facilities. It is difficult to get decision makers to fund recycling schemes (A. Peacock
2000)
Green Waste Green Garden Waste is collected in dedicated skips at most Household Waste
Recycling Sites.
Metal Scrap Metal is collected in dedicated skips at most Household Waste Sites
Food and Drinks Cans: are collected through a variety of schemes. Cans collected in
Rother District Council‘s area and Hastings Borough Council‘s area are collected by
SITA and delivered, for sorting, to the MRF at Sompting in West Sussex. Both
Lewes DC and Wealden DC‘s Direct Service Organisations (DSOs) collect mixed
cans and sort them at their respective MRF‘s. Wealden DC also collects cans in
Eastbourne Borough and sorts them at their depot. Brighton and Hove cans from
‗Bring‘ sites are collected and taken to Wealden DC‘s MRF.
Aluminium Foil: is collected at Lewes Civic Amenity Sites. It is passed to a local
scrap metal merchant for recycling.
Glass Glass: is mostly collected by Wealden DC DSO who are contractors for the East
Sussex Recycling Consortium (this includes Brighton and Hove) bottle bank scheme.
The glass is sorted at Wealden DC‘s Depot at Uckfield. Clear, green and amber glass
is sent to either Industrial Reclamations in Kent or to the British Glass Recycling
Company Essex to be recycled
Paper Newspapers and Magazines: there are collection schemes for newspapers and
magazines. They are collected and delivered to Aylesford Newsprint Ltd in Kent.
Cardboard: Brighton and Hove has 11 ‗bring sites‘ for card. In Brighton & Hove
and at Eastbourne and Seaford household waste (Civic Amenity) sites card is
collected by SCA Recycling and taken to Aylesford in Kent. In Hastings cardboard
is currently collected by the site operatives who also arrange for its recycling.
Plastic Plastic Bottles: are collected in Eastbourne, Hastings and Lewes and Rother District
and at Eastbourne Household Waste Site by SITA and taken to the MRF at Sompting
to be sorted, baled and sent for reprocessing. Lewes DC collects plastic bottles and
bales them at their MRF.
Plastic Carrier Bags: There are collection points for plastic carrier bags provided by
Safeway at their stores in Crowborough, Lewes, Eastbourne and Hastings. The
material is back hauled to their distribution centres.
Textiles Textiles: are collected by the Salvation Army. About 20% are reused, as second hand
clothing for local needs, sold through Salvation Army charity shops, jumble sales
and to third world countries. The remainder is non-wearable and is processed and
used to make cleaning and wiper cloths, mattress fillings, blankets and carpets.
Other Waste Soil and Hardcore: Hardcore is collected in dedicated skips at some HWRS
33
2.3.2. Civic Amenity (CA) Sites
There were fourteen Civic Amenity sites in the area 2002, which were renamed Household
Waste Recycling Sites (HWRSs), to re-emphasis the recycling agenda, of these; two were in
Brighton & Hove. At the HWRSs, separate dedicated containers for green waste have been
provided at most sites since April 1999, with recycling banks and bulky waste sections being
made available. The green waste was processed at small scale ―on farm‖ facilities or
delivered to the composting facility at Pebsham Landfill site. A summary of the waste
entering and leaving the HWRS is shown in Table 2.2:
HWRS MSW
delivered to sites
MSW to
landfillMSW composted MSW recycled
Recycling and
composting rate
ESCC HWRSs 62,574 49,618 6,700 6,255 20.7%
ESCC & BHC HWRSs 83,891 66,984 9,225 7,682 20.2%
Table 2.2: ESCC & BHC HWRS statistics for 2000/01 (DETR 2001)
The recycling rates of 20 -21% shown by Table 2.2 indicate that a reasonable amount of
recycling is already undertaken at the HWRSs. The location of the HWRSs are shown in
Figure 2.3 as orange boxes, each site is located in or near to an urban centre.
Figure 2.3 Location of civic amenity sites in the East Sussex area 2001 (ONYX 2002)
34
2.4. Waste transfer stations
There were two waste transfer stations in the Brighton & Hove area and none in East Sussex.
The Household Waste Site at Leighton Road, Hove doubled up as a waste transfer station
facility that has the same opening hours as the HWRS and bulked the paper from the kerbside
collection scheme. Transfer stations are designed to reduce the amount of time spent by
refuse collection vehicles (RCVs) on a landfill and bulk up waste collected for onward
transportation (Read 1999). The Council‘s in-house refuse collection and street cleansing
contractor used Hollingdean depot in Brighton as a transfer station for the services in BHC.
2.5. Densified Refuse Derived Fuel (dRDF) production
East Sussex County Council has a contract with Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd for the production
of densified Refuse Derived Fuel (dRDF) in pellet form, due to end in June 2007, but the
facility suffered a major fire in August 2002 (Hastings Observer 2002) and the future of the
plant is unsure. The plant contributed towards diverting from landfill a small proportion of
waste arising in the county area, but was seen by council managers as an unstable solution
and expensive for its diversion capabilities (R. Thomas Interview 2001).
East Sussex County Council directed Eastbourne, Hastings and Rother and Wealden as
WCAs to deliver 75,000 tonnes per annum of collected municipal solid waste to this facility
which was processed and diverted approximately 26,250 tonnes per annum from landfill. The
RDF Plant at Pebsham was built in 1988 (ESCC 2000/01). This ability for the WDA to direct
WCAs comes from the EPA para 48: ―it shall be the duty of each waste collection authority
to deliver for disposal all waste which is collected by the authority under section 45 above to
such places as the waste disposal authority for its area directs‖.
Under normal operating conditions the plant produced approximately 19,000 tonnes of dRDF
pellets, which were not burned on site but transported to Slough Heat & power (ESCC 2000).
As part of the process, approximately 2,000 tonnes of metals (mainly steel cans) were
extracted for recycling. During the drying process prior to pellet production, the moisture
content of the waste was reduced resulting in approximately 5,250 tonnes evaporating as
steam. The rejected material (up to 48,750 tonnes per year) from the pellet making process
was landfilled at the adjacent Pebsham landfill site. (ESCC 2000).
35
2.6. Landfill
Landfill is the most commonly used disposal route for MSW, varying from 67% in the North-
East region of England, to 95% in the North-West region (A.D Read 1998). Waste
management in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove relied primarily on two landfills within
the area, Beddingham, near Lewes and Pebsham in Hastings. There was also a landfill site at
Horton in West Sussex that received waste from Brighton & Hove Council. Approximately
306,000 tonnes per annum (85%) of MSW was disposed of via landfill in 2002 to all three
sites (BHC 2002). The contracts for disposal of waste at the landfill sites at Beddingham,
operated by Viridor Waste Management Ltd, and Pebsham, operated by Biffa Waste Services
Ltd, were meant to expire in 2003 when it was projected that the sites would be full.
The 2nd
Deposit of the Waste Local Plan identified ―two sites for non-inert waste in the east
and west to serve the whole Plan Area or one central site to take mainly residues from other
processes, towards the end of the Plan period.‖ The sites were Ashdown Brickworks at
Bexhill with a potential 1.0 million cubic metres (mcm) of void and Beddingham Land
Disposal Site, near Lewes, with an option for an extra 0.8 mcm of void (WLP 2002). There
were no other plans for extending the operation of the sites meaning that the councils had a
limited capacity to dispose of waste generated in their area.
2.7. The Legislative drivers for change in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove
Having established the waste practices and physical limitations of the area, it is necessary to
look at the legislative drivers that were influencing decision making up to 2002. December
1995 saw the start of the modern legislation for WDAs and WCAs with the publication of the
first strategy in England and Wales to be aimed at local government.
2.7.1. Making Waste Work
The White Paper, ‗Making Waste Work‘, was the first attempt at preparing a national waste
strategy (Read 1999) that could be achieved by local government. This was published in
1995 and came at a time when the pressure was increasing to manage the waste generated
within the UK more effectively (Burnley 2001). The main aims of ‗Making Waste Work‘
were based on three key objectives:
36
a) to reduce the amount of waste society produces;
b) to make best use of the waste that is produced; and
c) to choose waste management practices which minimise the risks of
immediate and future environmental pollution and harm to human health.
The White Paper set the first specific targets for the recycling and recovery of value from the
waste stream, they were:
a) ―to recycle 25% of household waste by the year 2000‖ and
b) ―to recover value from 40% of municipal solid waste by 2005‖
By 1997 it was evident that the targets would not be met (Burnley 2001) and thus in June
1998 DETR issued a consultation paper on the Waste Strategy for England and Wales,
entitled ―Less Waste, More Value‖ (DETR 1998). The consultation paper emphasized the
importance of managing waste in a more sustainable way. The majority of the 719
individuals and organisations responding to the consultation paper agreed with the
Government‘s vision of waste management for the future (DETR 1998). As a result of the
consultation, government developed a draft Waste Strategy,
―A Way with Waste‖.
2.7.2. The Landfill Tax
The UK's first environmental tax was the Landfill Tax introduced in 1996 by Conservative
government as Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 1527. Landfill tax is seen as a key mechanism
in enabling the UK to meet its targets set out in the European Landfill Directive for the
landfilling of biodegradable waste. Through increasing the cost of landfill, other advanced
waste treatment technologies with higher gate fees are made to become more financially
attractive. The amount of tax levied is calculated according to the weight of the material
disposed of and whether it is active or inactive waste:
Active waste covers all other forms of waste such as wood, ductwork, piping and
plastics.
37
Inactive (or inert) waste covers most materials used in a buildings fabric as well as
earth excavated for foundations. Most forms of concrete, brick, glass, soil, clay and
gravel are classified as inactive.
In 1996 the rate of landfill tax per tonne was £7 per tonne on active waste with a lower rate
for inactive waste of £2 tonne. The standard rate increased to £10 per tonne from 1 April
1999 and will in future rise by £1 per tonne per year (DOE 1998), by 2002 the rate of landfill
tax was £13 per tonne.
2.7.3. A Way with Waste
The Draft strategy was published in June 1999, and set out various non-mandatory goals for
future waste management within England and Wales. The commitments were seen as a step
towards a more progressive strategy for England and Wales and are summarised in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Key Commitments in ―A Way with Waste‖ (DETR 1998)
The commitments sent a message to local authorities and decision makers that change was at
hand. Commitments 1 and 3 were seen as drivers for significant change and would act as one
of the key factors in making councils across England move away from landfill. Whilst the
white paper was welcomed, it was deemed by many to be a collection of polices rather than a
strategy. In response to the consultation, the Society of Chemical Engineers stated: ―Overall
the document is very good at setting targets; indeed it is liberally sprinkled with them.
However targets do not themselves constitute a strategy.‖ (SoCE) To formalise the seven
commitments and to silence some of the critics, the government launched a new strategy in
2000.
1. Substantial increases in recycling and energy recovery
2. Engagement of the public in increased reuse and recycling of
household waste
3. A long term framework with challenging targets underpinned
by realistic programmes
4. A strong emphasis on waste minimisation
5. Using the waste hierarchy as a guide, not a prescriptive set of
rules
6. Responding to economic incentives like the Landfill Tax
7. Increased public involvement in decision making
38
2.7.4. Waste Strategy 2000
In May 2000, The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions published a
new Waste Strategy, entitled ―Waste Strategy 2000‖, for the management of Waste in
England & Wales over the next 20 years. The strategy set the following targets for the UK
Government to achieve:
By 2005 to recycle or compost at least 25% of Household Waste, and to
recover value from 40% of Municipal solid waste
By 2010 to recycle or compost at least 30% of Household Waste and to
recover value from 45% of Municipal solid waste
By 2015 to recycle or compost at least 33% of Household Waste and to
recover value from 67% of Municipal solid waste
The strategy also stated that authorities would be required to meet statutory standards for
2003 and 2005. The targets were seen by local authorities as ambitious whilst pressure
groups such as the Friends of the Earth stated that the targets were not high enough to divert
sufficient waste from landfill to meet the demands of the Landfill Directive (FOE 2000). The
House of Commons‘ Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee were
unimpressed and saw the 30% and 33% recycling targets for 2010 and 2015 as ‘depressingly
un-ambitious’ (FOE 2000). Undeterred, government released a further white paper in 2001
that clarified the way forward for local authorities.
2.7.5. Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies (March 2001)
As a follow up to ―Waste Strategy 2000‖, in March 2001 DETR published ―Guidance on
Municipal Waste Management Strategies‖. Within this document the Government set the
Statutory Performance Standards for each WCA and WDA, at a level to ensure that each
authority contributed proportionately to the achievement of the national targets set in Waste
Strategy 2000 (DETR 2001). The Statutory Performance Standards were based on the
recycling and composting rates calculated from the all Councils‘ responses to the 1998/99
Municipal Waste Survey, where that figure was doubled and then trebled for the two target
years. For the case study area, the targets are shown in Table 2.4, where it is bluntness of the
policy is demonstrated, for example, B&HCC performed well and had to increase their
39
recycling by 20 percentage points in 5 years, whereas Eastbourne performed badly in 1998/99
and only had to increase their performance by 12 percentage points, investment in new
schemes would therefore be very different.
Table 2.4: Statutory Performance Standards for the WCAs and WDAs (Adapted from
Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies, 2001)
As an added pressure to the targets being statutory there was a mechanism for intervention by
the government if the targets were missed. ―The Secretary of State has powers under Section
15 of the Local Government Act 1999 to act where authorities are failing to deliver best
value‖ (DETR 2001). The powers would be used predominantly to achieve improvements in
service delivery, as opposed to tackling procedural failures. The sanctions that could be
applied to local government caused many a local authority to look to alternative ways of
managing waste, but the relentless pressure of government on authorities had not abated,
indeed, within a year, a review of the 2000 waste strategy would start.
2.7.6. Waste Not, Want Not
A Home Office Strategy Unit was tasked at the end of 2001 with carrying out a review of the
waste strategy in England. The aim of the review had been to devise a strategy, with practical
and cost-effective measures for addressing the challenge, which would put England on a
sustainable path for managing future streams of household waste (Cabinet Office 2002). The
Strategy Unit's final report, "Waste not, want not" was published on 27 November 2002 and
contained a number of recommendations and policies to meet the aim of developing a
sustainable strategy.
Recycling rate
Statutory performance
standards
WCA 1998/99 2003/04 2005/06
Eastbourne BC 6% 12% 18%
Hastings BC 6% 12% 18%
Lewes DC 9% 18% 27%
Rother BC 8% 16% 24%
Wealden DC 8% 16% 24%
WDA 1998/99 2003/04 2005/06
Brighton & Hove CC 10% 20% 30%
East Sussex CC 9% 18% 27%
40
In responding to the strategy review, DEFRA were supportive of the document and enacted a
number of recommendations prior to doing a formal response; these are summarised in Table
2.5. Generally the white paper was seen as a success, but the 1st recommendation increased
the pressure on councils to move away from landfill. The implications of the rise in landfill
tax were very clear; the cost was going to rise quickly to bring more expensive technologies
onto a par with landfill disposal costs. What this also meant was that landfill costs would
increase significantly until a council had an alternative.
Table 2.5: Recommendations for a new strategy (Cabinet Office 2002)
Waste Not Want Not ended a period of concerted central government pressure on local
authorities to increase recycling. Following publication, government actively gave authorities
support which included the formation of a new delivery team, a new performance reward
grant and a new sustainable waste programme. However, it was decided by government that
clarification of the challenges set in the white paper ―Limiting Landfill‖ in 1999 were
required and the concept of tradable landfill permits was consulted upon. The concept of
landfill permits will be addressed in Chapter 6.
2.8. European Legislation
A significant proportion of UK legislation is determined by European Legislation. There are
numerous current and future directives that are designed to control the management of waste
Landfill Tax will be increased by £3 per tonne in 2005/06 and by at least £3 per tonne
in the years thereafter, on the way to a medium to long term rate of £35 per tonne.
The Landfill Tax Credit Scheme has been reformed and a proportion of the funding
will be re-directed to a new Sustainable Waste Management Programme in England
in 2003/04, 2004/05 and 2005/06;
A new Sustainable Waste Management Programme managed by Defra will
concentrate on improving waste minimisation, recycling and composting, and
researching new technologies for dealing with those wastes which are not readily
reduced, reused or recycled.
A new Delivery Team and Steering Group is being established in Defra to drive
forward implementation of the new programmes of work in Defra and WRAP;
Local authority funding of £90m each year for 2004/05 and 2005/06 has been
provided for the Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund or its successor
Performance Reward Fund.
41
in the EU, some of which have been incorporated into the preceding UK legislation. A
summary of the most influential European directives follows.
2.8.1. The EU Landfill Directive
The European Landfill Directive (ELD) 99/31/EC ―seeks to prevent or reduce possible
negative environmental effects from landfilling of waste by introducing uniform high
standards throughout the EU‖ (Burnley 2001). The ELD is the most influential piece of
waste management legislation to have been produced for some time (Taşeli, 2007).
The most important requirements of the Directive were: to treat most wastes before
landfilling, and by 2001, ban co-disposal of wastes, liquid wastes, infectious clinical waste
and certain types of hazardous waste (e.g. explosive, highly flammable) (ELD 1999). Of most
relevance to councils in the UK was the introduction of targets for the reduction of
biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) to landfill. The specific targets the ELD set were
introduced to English law as part of Limiting Landfill and later incorporated in Waste
Strategy 2000 as shown by Table 2.6:
(a) by 2010, to reduce biodegradable wastes landfilled by 25% of 1995 baseline
landfill Figures;
(b) by 2013 to reduce biodegradable wastes landfilled by 50% of 1995 baseline
landfill Figures; and
(c) by 2020, to reduce biodegradable wastes landfilled by 65% of 1995 baseline
landfill Figures.
Table 2.6: The Landfill Directive Targets for the UK (DEFRA 2002)
The targets are onerous because they are calculated as a percentage of a base line figure and
therefore do not allow for waste growth. Biodegradable waste is estimated to make up 62.5%
of MSW (Limiting Landfill 1999); meaning that if there was 1 million tonnes of MSW
landfilled in 1995, by 2020 only 218,750 tonnes of BMW could be landfilled. The enormity
of the task for achieving the targets was summarised by Corker and Davies, who estimated
that 123 million tonnes of waste would have to be diverted from landfill over 20 years in the
UK (Corker and Davies 1999).
42
The driver for the two councils in 1999 was to move from a system whereby they landfilled
over 300,000 tonnes of MSW per annum, to one where they could only landfill 65,625 tonnes
of BMW in 2019/20. The councils saw this as the significant pressure for changing their
waste disposal regime. When this was combined with the lack of void space it meant the
current method of waste management couldn‘t continue.
2.8.2. The European Waste Incineration Directive (WID)
The Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of waste was published on 28 December 2000
in the Official Journal of the European Communities (L332, p.91). The Directive introduced
far stricter provisions than those found in the previous Municipal Waste Incineration
Directives (89/369/EEC and 89/429/EEC) and Hazardous Waste Incineration Directive
(94/67/EC). The requirements of the directives meant that if councils were to move towards
incineration as a way to change the management of waste, they would need to meet new
emission limit. The WID was estimated to have added a third to the cost of incinerator (Riley
2001)
2.9. Public perception
The view of the public towards the environment was starting to change at the turn of the
century. Petts thought that effective waste management was dependent upon achieving
informed consensus amongst interested parties (Petts 1994). The term interested parties had
previously meant regulators, but in an increasingly environmentally aware area such as the
south coast of England, interested parties became the public, who believed that landfill sites
were bad for the environment. Some of this opinion had been stoked by Dolk, who suggested
that living near landfill sites would produce birth defects or increase your chances developing
cancer (Dolk et al 1998). The councils considered the pressure of the public as being one the
greatest factors in influencing the future structure of waste management, and not to be
underestimated (Carter 2001).
2.10. Next steps for ESCC & BHC
Between 1997 and 1999 East Sussex County Council and Brighton & Hove Council were
concerned by the emerging pressures of ―Making Waste Work‖ and ―A Way with Waste‖,
whilst also conscious of the emerging Landfill Directive (Carter 2001). To mitigate these
43
pressures as well as the shortage of landfill, a decision was taken by ESCC and BHC to work
together to benefit from economies of scale and shared officer resource. A joint project team
was set up in 1999 to procure a long term contract that would allow the councils to plan for
the future.
2.11. The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract
The EPA 1990 gave the power for WDAs to procure a contract from a private contractor
(EPA 1990). The Private Finance Initiative was first introduced to the public sector in 1992
with the primary objective of securing benefits from the involvement of the private sector in
the delivery of services. In 1995, the first wave of major PFI development projects was
launched, but these were not for waste projects, the first waste project was the 1996 Isle of
Wight PFI contract. Accounting rules allowed assets to be kept ‗off balance sheet‘, provided
that the contract demonstrated sufficient transfer of risk to the private sector through the
delivery of a wide range of services as part of the deal. The other main requirement for
approval was that the contract represented value for money when measured against an
equivalent project delivered through public funding via a public sector comparator (Allene
HM Treasury).
The Councils submitted an Outline Business Case (OBC) bid to the Government in 1999, for
Private Finance Initiative (PFI) Credits to help offset some of the anticipated increased costs
associated with moving to more sustainable waste management operations. On 17 January
2000 the Councils received a letter from the Department of the Environment Transport and
the Regions (DETR) stating that the Department would support the PFI application for £49
million spread over 25 years. The award of the PFI was dependent on the successful delivery
of an integrated contract that demonstrated value for money and an appropriate transfer of
risk to the private sector. By July 2000 members of the ESCC Cabinet Committee and
B&HCC Joint Integrated Waste Contract Sub-Committee had agreed a shortlist of companies
to be invited to tender for the joint Integrated Waste Management Services Contract.
2.12. Summary of pressures
By 2002 the two councils were in no better position than the majority of councils in the UK.
Burnley stated that for authorities to meet the Landfill Directive all parts of the UK would
44
―need to develop intensive national recycling schemes and expand their incineration
capacity‖ (Burnley 2001). The preceding sections have shown that there was significant
pressure on the councils in the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove area to change from the
current landfill based management methods to a more sustainable long-term integrated
approach. This chapter has highlighted the main pressures on moving to a new strategy are as
a result of the following factors:
Lack of future landfill void
EU legislation aimed at reducing reliance on landfill
UK legislation aimed at increasing recycling and recovery
Indirect pressures such as the landfill tax increasing the cost of the common
method of disposal
Public pressure in ensuring the new solution is environmentally friendly
Having decided that a partnership was the sensible approach to procuring a PFI contract that
was both lengthy and costly, the council‘s considered the technical options crucial and
formed a joint team to procure a solution. The following chapter will describe the
technological solutions available to the councils at the turn of the century to enable them to
meet their objective of diverting more MSW from landfill.
45
3. THE ALTERNATIVES TO LANDFILL DISPOSAL AVAILABLE TO ESCC
AND BHC IN 2002
The previous chapter has shown that as a result of numerous drivers Brighton & Hove and
East Sussex Councils decided to procure a long term PFI contract for the disposal of waste.
This chapter introduces the Waste Hierarchy and examines the main technologies and
treatment practices available to the Councils in 2002. All are alternatives to landfill, but each
may in part result in some of the wastes going to landfill or other technologies as residue
from the process, meaning that a complex logistical management method may need to be
employed. The technologies will be rigorously assessed to determine which are suitable for
mitigating the impact of the drivers and the final choice of facility will be presented.
3.1. Managing MSW according to The Waste Hierarchy
In 2001 there was nearly 30 million tonnes of MSW in England, managed by WCAs and
WDAs and consisting of a mix of organic and inert substances. MSW was managed by four
predominant methods, recycling, composting, incineration or landfill, although disposal to
landfill is deemed to be bad for the environment (Mattson 2002). The waste hierarchy was
first introduced in the European Union‘s Waste Framework Directive of 1975 (Directive
75/442/EEC) to quantify the relative importance of each method of treatment. In 1989 it was
formalised into a hierarchy of management options in the European Commission‘s
Community Strategy for Waste Management, and further endorsed in the Commission‘s
review of this strategy in 1996 (COM(96)0399 - C4-0453/96). The precautionary principle
had been established as a method for preventing pollution to the environment and the waste
hierarchy focused on this by prioritising the prevention and reduction of waste, then its reuse
and recycling and lastly the optimisation of its final disposal. The concept is described by the
―3Rs‖ – Reduce, Reuse, Recover – followed by unavoidable disposal. The hierarchy is
designed to demonstrate the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) in managing
waste generated by households and commercial premises (Adams et al 2000). The Hierarchy
has been visualised in many ways, in 2002 the Government‘s Strategy Unit produced Figure
3.1.
46
Figure 3.1: The Waste Hierarchy (Waste Not want Not 2002)
The hierarchy demonstrates which options are most desirable, the higher up, the better for the
environment (Waste Not want Not 2002). Reading of the hierarchy would show that disposal
is least favourable with waste reduction being most encouraged. There follows an explanation
of the five tiers of the waste hierarchy and a quantification of the technologies chosen for the
PFI contract.
3.2. Level 1: Waste reduction
Municipal solid waste increased by approximately 54% in the OECD area between 1980 and
2000 (OECD 2004) and is one of the main factors in increasing council budgets in the UK
(LGA 2004). Waste reduction is referred to as prevention as well as minimisation and is the
preferred method of waste management and involves eliminating and reducing the amount of
waste at source. It is considered to be the most important management technique to be
applied to solid waste (Phillips et al 1998). Read proposes that prevention and minimisation
are one and the same concept and defines it as: Prevention and/or reducing the generation of
waste, improving the quality of waste generated, including reduction of hazard and
encouraging re-use, recycling and recovery. MSW reduction has been somewhat neglected
compared to industrial waste reduction as it is the most difficult to implement, due to the
involvement of individuals, businesses, local authorities and other public bodies. It is
essential to examine current practices and try to alter the social norms to reduce the amount
of waste produced (Maycox 2003). The impact of reduction may be important, but will never
reduce waste to zero, therefore further activities are required that require technical
47
manipulation of waste. For the PFI contract, an allowance should be made for a waste
minimisation programme that focus on prevention of waste, combined the promotion of re-
use of materials
3.3. Level 2: Re-use
The re-use of waste materials is placed second in the hierarchy of waste management options.
The potential to reuse the waste has been demonstrated for years by returnable product
schemes and scrap shops at civic amenity sites (Read 1999), whilst charity shops, car boot
sales and the collections made by NGOs such as the Salvation Army and The Scouts show
that there is public support for re-use. There are two distinct types of re-use. The first is
conventional re-use in which products, such as milk bottles, are designed to be used a
maximum number of times before becoming obsolete. The second form of re-use is where
new uses are found for items once their original use has been fulfilled. Both types of reuse are
limited in their capacity to divert waste as the applications are both diverse and insignificant
in scale.
In 1978, Breakspere was concerned about the vast quantities of potentially useful materials
discarded as waste (Breakspere et al 1978) and suggested reuse was necessary. Historically,
re-using potential waste materials played an important part in both commercial life and in the
household, thereby reducing the material requiring disposal. The 'throw away society' that has
permeated society in the last two decades has led to a decline in such practices. One must
question the potential for reuse in the future and how it will be reincorporated into society,
the concept of buying new products means that re-use will only enable a small proportion of
MSW to be diverted from landfill, meaning the use of discarded material needs another
option; recycling. To reduce the amount of waste the councils should manage through the
PFI, a focus must be place on re-using and preventing the waste arising, as highlighted in 3.2,
this would be best achieved through a formalised programme for waste minimisation and re-
use, which must be incorporated into the main body of the PFI.
3.4. Level 3a: Recycling
In the 1990 White Paper ‗This Common Inheritance‘ the Government set a target of recycling
25% of all household waste by the year 2000 (DOE 1990), this was supported by Section
49 of the 1990 Environmental Protection Act requiring every WCA to prepare a waste-
48
recycling plan (DOE 1995). Recycling involves the collection of materials for reprocessing
to create a useable material or product. Recycling can, in principle, enable raw materials to be
used many times, with the method of collection crucial in determining quality and type of
reprocessing (Evison & Read 2001). Kerbside recycling schemes developed in the UK
through the 1990‘s were essentially modelled on US and Canadian programmes established
in the previous decade. Two basic types of operation were emulated:
a) Sorting at the kerbside into specially developed collection vehicles, backed by a
simple recycling transfer station;
b) Collecting commingled materials in conventional compaction vehicles for sorting at a
more sophisticated Materials Recycling Facility (MRF).
The first schemes to take off in the UK involved kerbside sorting and were facilitated by
small trials which avoided the need for capital investment in large plants and associated
planning (Evison & Read 2001). The types of recycling can be categorised as: Kerbside sort,
Single stream Co-mingled and Co-mingled Two Stream, an explanation of each follows.
3.4.1. Kerbside sort
Kerbside sort involves the sorting of materials at kerbside into different compartments of a
specialist collection vehicle. This has proved to be the easiest to introduce as the capital
outlay for vehicles and equipment is relatively low and can be undertaken in stages, whereas
the capital cost of constructing a MRF is high. The first kerbside sort processes were
supported by ―mini-MRFs‖ or local recycling transfer stations (ideally located at existing
depots/waste transfer stations) incorporating external storage bays for glass, covered storage
for paper and plastics/cans. Materials could then be bulked straight to processors in 20-25
tonne loads.
Kerbside sorting is best facilitated by the use of two recycling boxes (Evison & Read 2001),
as it allows paper, card, plastics and metals to be separately collected from glass, which has
the propensity to contaminate paper and card and therefore reduce the quality of recycled
materials. These are generally well received by householders; can be stored inside or out,
and most importantly, can be carried through the house conveniently. Modern ―kerbsider‖
vehicles have low-level side ―troughs‖ that elevate hydraulically into multi-compartments
49
with adjustable divisions, facilitating efficient collection and good payloads. Box schemes
collecting multi-materials can be operated successfully in rural and suburban areas. Urban
environments can and do create special problems for recycling, though arguably no more than
the establishment of an efficient refuse collection operation (Juniper 2002). Issues of
vehicular access and traffic congestion can influence collection operations.
Multi-occupancy/high rise dwellings are best approached on an individual basis to
accommodate material specific recycling bins supported by local bring banks for other
materials (Thomas 2001, Tucker et al 1997, Mattsson 2003)
3.4.2. Co-mingled collection with separation
Co-mingled collection with separation involves the collection of materials in a single
compartment vehicle with the sorting of these materials occurring at a Material Recycling
Facility (MRF) (Lewes DC 2001). A MRF is a specialised plant which separates, processes
and stores recyclables which have been collected either separately from waste (a 'clean' MRF)
or co-mingled with it (a 'dirty' MRF). Recycled materials are then sent to the materials
processor and any residual material not suitable for processing goes on for disposal. MRF's
are important to achieving higher levels of recycling and to make sure it is of a high enough
quality that it will have a ready market and a net environmental gain.
The sorting of materials in a MRF is done by a combination of hand picking, automatic
sieving and screening through the use of magnets and electric fields to remove the metals
(Juniper 2002). MRF's are usually housed in large warehouse-type buildings and need to be
located so as to optimise collection and minimise transport. Like other waste facilities, MRF's
are not always easy to site as they do require good road access and do lead to an increase in
local traffic. Arrangements for providing MRF's are important, as too is setting defined input
and output quality standards. Often economies of scale can be achieved by waste collection
and waste disposal authorities working together on a regional initiative. (ETSU 1999). The
required capacity of MRFs to enable recycling to take place will be higher than the amounts
that will be recovered, because of the level of contamination and rejected materials from the
processes. The recovery rate of MRFs will range from 80 – 90% in segregated MRFs (Onyx
2001) but far lower rates for dry recyclables are achieved in mixed waste MRFs. The levels
of contamination are far higher in mixed waste MRFs but because mixed collection systems
can be used, the overall amounts entering the process will be higher.
50
3.4.3. Two stream co-mingling
Two stream co-mingling is where residents are provided with two recycling containers and
are asked to place different materials in each container, typically paper/card (fibre) in one and
plastics, glass and cans (containers) in the other. These materials are kept separate but
collected in one vehicle which has two chambers.
3.4.4. Maximising recycling from household collections
WCAs that want to achieve recycling rates above of 33% and above will need to collect both
dry recyclables and green wastes. Here follows the four factors that influence the recycling
rate achieved, with an example of the equation and assumptions for material composition
shown in Figure 1.3, without the collection of green waste:
Householder coverage (HC) = 80%
Materials collected (paper card, glass, metals) (MC) = 32%
Householder participation (HP) = 85%
MRF recycling rate (MR) = 90%
To calculate the potential amount of waste recycled for a WCA with 100,000 tonnes of MSW
collected from households the following calculation needs to be made:
Potential Recycling = ((((MSW * HC)*MC)*HP)*MR)
or
Potential Recycling = ((((100,000 * 80%)*32%)*85%)*90%)
Potential Recycling = 22,032 tonnes or 22%
The calculation shows that high coverage of a scheme with high participation alone doesn‘t
equate to a high recycling rate, additional material needs to be collected to increase the rate.
The obvious material for collection would be that of highest composition, the pie chart in
Figure 1.5 shows that garden/green waste accounts for 20% of the composition of MSW,
adding this material to the collection scheme and recalculating the formula above would
indicate that a recycling rate of 35.8% could be achieved.
51
To achieve these theoretically high recycling rates, education, advertising and promotional
campaigns are essential to encourage high levels of public participation (Evison & Read
2001). This implies driving materials sorting up the chain to household and kerbside,
supported by a high-profile collection system that changes public perception of waste
operations, prioritising recycling versus rubbish disposal. One methodology that has been
extremely successful is the switch to alternate week collections of green compostable and
residual waste. If the materials recycling collection is made weekly, then refuse operations
are turned on their head – recycling is prioritised in real life experience and cultural change is
effected, albeit that there is major public perception issues with food waste being left in a bin
for two weeks, especially in the summer.
3.5. Level 3b: Composting
Composting is a controlled biological process that uses natural aerobic processes to increase
the rate of biological decomposition of organic materials (Renkow & Rubin 1998). Slater and
Frederickson suggested that composting had a ―vital role to play in meeting the obligations of
the Landfill Directive‖ (Slater and Frederickson 2001). Industrial scale composting appears to
have started in Holland in 1927, but it wasn‘t until the 1970‘s that MSW was used as a
feedstock (Gray and Biddlestone 1980, Slater and Frederickson 2001). Composting
technologies can be categorised three ways; back yard, open and closed, each has sub
categories that are identified in Figure 3.2:
Figure 3.2: MSW composting options (adapted from ETSU 1999)
Composting techniques use the natural biological processes to break down the biodegradable
waste streams into humus or soil conditioner, but wastes that decompose, particularly the
more putrescible household wastes, generate gases and leachate which are potentially
52
polluting. The benefits outweigh the potential deficits, for example, the need for natural
fertilisers, such as peat, will be reduced if more waste can be recovered in this way.
3.5.1. Home composting
The two councils decided on a policy that enabled them to sell or give home composters to
the residents of their area, on the basis that they would have less waste to collect (ESCC &
B&HCC websites). This is a system of composting that can divert the biodegradable element
of MSW, garden and green waste and food peeling, excluding cooked kitchen waste and
bulky green garden waste. It can be seen by Figure 1.5 that approximately 37% of the MSW
arising per household is of this fraction; however, the inputs to a compost bin will be limited
to approximately 100-200kg per annum or 10-20 of the MSW. Home composting is
immeasurable due to the inability to measure every bit of material that enters the composting
unit. It is because of this latter point that home composting is encouraged in so much as to
decrease the waste presented to the councils at the kerbside rather than to count it.
3.5.2. Open composting from source segregated MSW
Open composting is only allowed to be used for source segregated green waste, due to the
Animal By–Products Regulations (ABPR) introduced by the EU in 2002. Open composting
relates to two methods of treatment; windrows and aerated static piles. Windrows are defined
as regularly turned elongated piles, shaped like a haystack in cross section and up to a
hundred metres or more in length (Richard 1996); a windrow is shown in Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3: Le-Harve Open composting site (Greenfield 2001)
Windrow
Impermeable concrete slab
53
The Animal By-Products Regulation 2002, states that particle size must not be greater than
40cm, and that a minimum temperature of 60C should be achieved 8 days. (ABPR 2002).
Most MSW windrows are 1 to 3 metres high and 3 to 6 metres wide, opinion varies, but the
optimal size is considered to be 3 to 5 m at the base and 2 to 3 m in height and somewhat
triangular in shape. (Richard 1996, Kuhlman 1989). Windrows will take days and sometimes
weeks to construct, but are usually each managed as a single batch (Renkow & Rubin 1998).
Windrows composed of MSW are required to be located on an impermeable surface, which
greatly improves equipment handling under inclement weather conditions (Kulman 1989) and
allows leachate to be captured and treated. Windrows will take between 4 and 12 weeks to
turn into compost through planned turning and will produce a product that can be compliant
with the publically available specification (PAS) 100 (Composting Association 2001). To
ensure composting in windrows occurs, oxygen is required; this is achieved by physical
mixing of the mass and natural convection. Aerated static piles take the same shape and
concept of process as windrow, but use forced aeration to further oxygenate the pile. Aerated
piles are normally over 4 metres high, and housed in silos (Kulman 1989).
3.5.3. Closed composting
Closed composting can also be referred to as centralised composting and described as ‗In-
Vessel‘ or ‗Tunnel‘ and can be broadly categorised into three types: vertical flow, horizontal
flow and batch, Figure 3.4 shows an example of a horizontal flow system based in France.
Figure 3.4: Varen Jarcy Enclosed composting windrows (Greenfield 2001)
54
These systems are normally in the range of 8,000-20,000 tonnes per annum, are capital
intensive, have on-site weighing facilities and capable of taking uncooked food as well as
garden wastes. The process will produce a compost that is of a good quality and saleable, but
there will also be a process waste residue, which will normally only be fit for disposal by
landfill or EfW (Slater & Frederickson 2001). The Environment Agency regard composting
as an industrial process that requires suitable planning to mitigate the impact of traffic, air
emissions, dust, odour, noise, litter, water usage and visual intrusion (Environment Agency
2001).
3.5.4. The case for composting waste
Composting should be seen as a simple choice for the councils, it is relatively cheap, and
could divert up to 30% of the MSW waste stream from landfill, also reflected in legislation.
Green waste and food waste collected together from households should be composted in an
enclosed facility, where temperatures must exceed 70oC for between 2hrs and 2days
(depending on the technology) whereas green waste from HWRS can be composted in open-
air facilities 60oC, for a minimum of 8 days (ABPR 2002). It is preferable to separate green
waste and food waste where feasible as the product generated will be of a higher quality and
more saleable.
3.6. Level 4: Energy recovery with heat and power
Some facilities are designed to maximise the recovery of energy from the treatment of non-
inert wastes. Energy recovery is a catch all term for a number of different technologies; mass-
burn incineration, anaerobic digestion pyrolysis and gasification, all may have a public
perception of limited pollution control (Petts 1991) and are therefore deemed to difficult to be
deliver. The control of emissions as an issue arises primarily in relation to mass-burn
incineration, where waste is burnt under controlled conditions (Porteous 2005). Other EfW
technologies, such as gasification, involve processes where emissions to the atmosphere are
limited or non-existent (Braekman-Danheux et al 1998).
The following sections encapsulate the assessment of the technologies and the suitability of
each for the ESCC and BHCA PFI contract. The conclusion to the chapter will identify the
55
technologies chosen, based upon commercial track record and ability to meet the targets set
out in review of the predominant energy recovery technologies follows:
3.6.1. Mass burn incineration
Mass burn incineration is commonly referred to as Energy from Waste (EfW) or as an Energy
Recovery Facility (ERF), it has also been defined as Waste to Energy (WtE), mainly to
overcome negative public attitude to the term incineration (Miranda and Hale 1998, Carlsson
1996, A. Hegberg et al 1985). For the purposes of this section, the term EfW will be used to
describe mass burn incineration.
An EfW facility is designed for the combustion of waste in a single-stage chamber unit where
complete combustion or oxidation occurs, under controlled conditions in which heat is
released and recovered for a beneficial purpose (Williams 2005). Production of steam or hot
water for industrial or domestic users, or for electricity generation is the main output of the
facility, whilst combined heat and power (CHP) incinerators provide both heat and electricity.
The fuel value (calorific value) of Municipal solid waste is about one third that of coal: as a
rough guide, for every 100,000 tonnes of EfW capacity about 7 megawatts (MW) of
electricity could be exported to the grid to meet the needs of about 11,000 homes (ETSU
1999). Although energy is an important and valuable by-product, the technology exists
primarily as a waste disposal means. The basic components of an EfW are the:
Waste bunker and reception building
Combustion unit(s) which burn the waste
Heat recovery and power generation plant
Emission Pollution Control
Ash collection facility
Exhaust stack which discharges the cleaned combustion gases to the air.
The generic process is that MSW is received into a pit where an overhead crane mixes the
waste, to evenly distribute combustible materials and moisture, and remove oversized
materials. The crane feeds waste into a charging hopper, usually by means of a hydraulic
ram, from here, the waste falls onto the moving grate system into the combustion chamber.
Air for combustion is introduced from under the grate (under fire air) and from nozzles
located in the furnace above the grate (over fire air). Under fire air initiates combustion and
keeps the grate cool. Over fire air helps to mix the combustion gases and ensure more
56
complete combustion of volatiles (A. Hegberg et al 1985). Additional fuelling with natural
gas or oil may be required to maintain specified combustion conditions, especially during
shutdown or start-up (Miranda and Hale 1998). Various designs of grate are available but all
have the purpose of agitating and transporting the burning waste through the furnace so that it
can be discharged as a sterile (biologically inactive), non-combustible (inert) ash which can
be used in construction or disposed of to landfill. The schematic in Figure 3.5 shows the main
components of an EfW:
Figure 3.5: A Schematic of a generic EFW Facility (Mercia Waste)
These main components are typically supported by facilities such as a gatehouse and
weighbridge, storage facilities and silos for process materials, maintenance stores etc (Juniper
2001) and can be seen in Figure 3.5. The significant benefit of EFW is the ability for it to
divert nearly 70% of the fuel stock from landfill; if the residual materials are used for
secondary recovery diversion from landfill can reach nearly 100%. The exterior design of an
EfW is modern and high tech, as demonstrated by the field trip photo shown in Figure 3.6:
57
Figure 3.6: The VESTA Energy from Waste facility at Rouen (Greenfield 2001)
3.6.1.1. The process of energy recovery from mass burn incineration
The hot gases from the combustion chamber are directed to a boiler to recover heat. Energy is
transferred from the hot flue gases to water in the boiler tubes, generating hot water and
steam and cooling the flue gases. These boilers normally comprise super heaters and
economisers to increase energy recovery. The steam is used to turn a turbine and generate
electricity. It is possible to use the steam as a heat source for space heating or industrial
processes, as well as for electricity generation. The cooled flue gases pass through pollution
abatement plant before exhausting to air via a stack. ―A nominal 550-650 kilowatt hours
(kWh) of electricity or approximately 2,000 kWh of heat per tonne of waste burned can be
recovered (ETSU 1999).
The efficiency of energy recovery depends upon the use - electricity or heat supply - and the
plant design. Typically, about 10% of the electricity produced is used in running the systems
within the plant and the rest - 90% - is available for export.‖ (ETSU 1999)
3.6.1.2. Emission Control from EFW
After the combustion process the gases are cleaned. There is a range of designs for emission
pollution control (EPC), but the system for a modern plant is likely to consist of the
following, demonstrated in Table 3.1:
58
Table 3.1: Measures of emission pollution control (ETSU 1999)
EPC equipment can account for 40% of the capital cost of a modern EFW plant (Riley 2001)
but is a fundamental part of a facility that will only be acceptable to the public if the
emissions are controlled.
3.6.1.3. Case Study: SELCHP
In 1986, faced with the increasing scarcity and environmental problems of landfill, the
London boroughs of Lewisham, Southwark, and Greenwich came together to search for an
identify a realistic alternative. In 1988, they formed the South East London Combined Heat
and Power Consortium (SELCHP) that uses mass-burn incineration technology for the
combustion of 420,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste a year.
In the SELCHP facility, MSW is fed by crane from the storage bunker into one of the two
identical incinerator streams, each capable of burning 29 tonnes per hour (tph). The two
furnaces use Martin reverse-acting stoker grates to agitate the waste during combustion, and
energy recovery will be achieved via integral CNIM three-pass membrane-wall boilers and
economisers, nominally producing 152 tph of superheated steam at 47 bar 395°C. The steam
fed to a single medium-pressure steam turbine driving a four-pole synchronous 31 MW
alternator with automatic regulators at a nominal 11 kV. Exhaust steam from the turbine is
condensed by means of air- cooled condensers. This full system redundancy gives operating
flexibility in the event of a shutdown of one system, and enhances the reliability of the 24
hours a day, 7 days a week operation (SELCHP 2002).
Acid gas scrubbing using a lime mixture injected into the gas stream, which reacts to
neutralise the acid gases such as sulphur dioxide, hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride.
Activated carbon injection to remove organic compounds such as dioxins and volatile
metals such as mercury and cadmium.
Particulate (dust) removal using an electrostatic precipitator or filters. These fine
particulates are known as ‘fly ash’.
Measures to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen. Those measures available range from
controlling combustion conditions, e.g. by recycling some of the flue gas through the boiler.
These simple measures will not, however, meet the limit proposed in the draft EC
Incineration Directive. To achieve these higher standards will require techniques such as
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR). Both
are widely developed elsewhere in Europe. They rely on chemicals such as ammonia or
urea injected into the flue gas to destroy oxides of nitrogen. SCR requires the use of special
catalysts and natural gas burners to re-heat the flue gas to promote the reaction.
59
3.6.2. Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion has been used for over 100 years to treat sewage sludge and farm
slurries, it is only since the 1970‘s that MSW has been considered as an input fraction. One of
the first full scale plants was the Pompano Beach, Florida Solid Waste Reduction Centre site
(RefCom), which was operated from 1978 to 1985 (Braber 1985). Household waste is made
up of a range of materials including paper, card, plastics, textiles, glass, metal and
putrescibles (organic material that is easily degraded such as fruit and foodstuffs) (Bruner &
Ernst 1985). Of these, only putrescibles and paper are ideally suited to anaerobic digestion
and the process will be easier to manage if these wastes comprise the only feed to the system
(Zhang et al 2006). Garden waste may also be treated by anaerobic digestion, but the extent
of degradation will vary according to the type of material, for example, grass cuttings are
more easily treated than woody material. The purity of the material fed into the AD process
dictates the quality of the horticultural product at the end of the process (Al Seadi 2002).
Some facilities are designed to remove as many other materials as possible, for example
ferrous metals, before digestion while others are designed to optimise gas collection for
energy production, and soil conditioner production is not their main objective. Other plants
might choose to optimise the horticultural product, seeing the energy as a less important by-
product. Having separated any recyclable or unwanted materials from the incoming wastes,
the organic material is shredded and fed into the digestor. If very wet wastes, like sewage
sludge, are included, then the addition of further water may not be necessary, but in the case
of household organic wastes, water is added (Gim et al 2001). Different systems can handle
different percentages of solid to liquid, and while average ratios are 15-25%, certain
technologies can cope with solids as high as 30%. The wastes remain in the heated digestor at
temperatures around 35-37oC (known as the mesophilic range) for varying periods of 10-20
days, the duration being dictated by differing technologies, external temperature fluctuations,
and other variables like the waste composition itself (G. Kiely et al. 1996).
Some newer processes operate at the higher (thermophilic) temperature of 55oC, and this
offers better rates of degradation (Al Seadi 2002). Gases given off during the decomposition
are continuously drawn off. A flow diagram of the AD single phase process is shown in
Figure 3.7.
60
Figure 3.7. Schematic representation of the single-step composting process. (Wellinger,
1999).
After the accelerated in-vessel biological degradation is complete, the solid residue known as
'digestate' is removed and usually `cured' aerobically as well as being screened to remove
oversized and unwanted items like glass shards or pieces of plastic. The degree of screening
required varies according to the intended use of the final product. This process results in a
waste residue that has potential for composting, depending upon input to the plant (Six & De
Beare 1990).
Although it is widely recognised that one of the benefits of the AD process is the production
of methane gas (Kiely et al 1985, Fricke et al 2007), what is often forgotten is that there will
also be a process residue. If this can be successfully used as horticultural product then the
economics of the process are likely to be much more favourable together with a far higher
diversion from landfill, otherwise there is likely to be on-going disposal costs at the end of
the process. There are a number of available AD systems at different stages of commercial
status, but the predominant and most relevant to MSW are the High-solids anaerobic
digestion systems, this will be demonstrated through the evidence in Table 3.2 that shows that
commercially proven facilities are of this type. High-solids anaerobic digestion systems have
been developed to handle the digestion of solid wastes (particularly MSW) at solids contents
of 30% or greater (Cecchi et al 1986). High-solids systems enable the reactor size to be
reduced, require less process water and have lower heating costs (Cecchi et al 1991). A
number of commercial and pilot scale plants have been developed which include: the Valorga
process, the Drano process and the Kampongs process. A summary of the commercial plants
up to 1999 is shown in Table 3.2 a description of each of the technologies will follow.
61
Process Location Feedstock Capacity tonnes/y On-line date Description
Grenoble, France 16,000 1984
Amiens, France 85,000 1988
Papeete, Tahiti 90,000 1996
Tilburg, NL 52,000 1991
Tamara (French
Polynesia).
91,000 1994
Engelskirchen, Germ. 35,000 1998
Ghent, Belgium 800 1984
Brecht, Belgium 12,000 1992
Salzburg, Austria 20,000 1993
Bassum, Germ. 13,500 1997
Aarberg, Switz. 11,000 1997
Kaiserslautern, Germ. 20,000 1998
Rumlang, Switz. 4,000 1992
Bachenbulach, Switz 10,000 1994
Samstagern, Switz. 10,000 1995
Kempton, Germ. 10,000 1995
Otelfingen, Switz. 12,000 1996
Braunschweig, Germ 10,000 1997
Munchen, Germ. 20,000 1997
Lustenau, Aust. 10,000 1997
Hunstruck, Germ 10,000 1997
Niederuzwil, Switz. 6,000 1997
Kyoto, Japan 1,000 UC
Kompogas Source sep. MSW
or green garden
waste
Thermophilic
horizontal plug-flow
Valorga Mechanically
separated MSW
Mesophilic gas-mixed
reactor
Dranco Source sep. MSW
+ garden waste
Thermophilic vertical
plug-flow reactor
Table 3.2: Commercial high-solids anaerobic digestion plants (IEA Bioenergy, 1996,
updated 1999)
Most of the facilities had been open for more than two years in 1999 and were over 10,000
tpa, meaning that these three systems of anaerobic digestion could be considered as
commercially operational. The councils could therefore consider anaerobic digestion as a
viable alternative to landfill.
3.6.2.1. The Valorga system
Developed in France, the installation at Amiens combines four mesophilic high-solids
reactors with the incineration of residues and non-digested matter (Valorga 2000). Mixing
within the reactor is carried out by reverse circulation under pressure of a small proportion of
the biogas. Biogas produced has a methane content of 55-60%. The biogas can be purified to
a methane content of 97% which can then be fed into the gas network used to raise steam for
an industrial process or for heating and electricity production (Al Seadi 2002). The specific
methane yield is between 220 - 250 m3/tonne of total volatile solids (TVS) or between 80 -
160 m3/tonne of waste fed, depending on the waste. The process operates at solids contents
typically 25 - 35% with residence times between 18-25 days (Fruteau de Laclos et al 1997).
The Valorga system has the highest number of large scale facilities and could therefore be
considered to be a sensible option for the Councils as it has already been commercially
proven, unlike some of its competitors.
62
3.6.2.2. The Dranco (Dry Anaerobic Composting) system
Developed in Gent, Belgium, the system operates at high solids content and thermophilic
temperatures. Feed is introduced daily into the top of the reactor, and digested material is
removed from the base at the same time. Part of the digestate is recycled as inoculation
material, whilst the rest is de-watered to produce an organic compost material (Al Seadi
2002). There is no mixing within the reactor, other than that brought about by the downward,
plug-flow movement of the waste.
Figure 3.8: Brecht II - DRANCO exterior view (Greenfield 2000)
The total solids content of the digester shown in Figure 3.8 depends on the source of the
waste material but is in the range 15 - 40%. Reactor retention time is between 15 - 30 days,
the operating temperature is in the range 50-58oC and the biogas yield is between 100- 200
m3 / tonne of waste feedstock. (Six & De Beare 1990). The gas is captured and used for
generation of energy through a turbine or can be used as fuel. Similar to the Valorga process,
this technology could be considered by the Councils as large scale plants have been
operational for at least 10 years.
3.6.2.3. The Kompogas system
It is a high solids thermophilic digestion system developed in Switzerland. The reaction
vessel is a horizontal cylinder into which feed is introduced daily. Movement of material
through the digester is in a horizontal plug-flow manner with digested material being
63
removed from the far end of the reactor after approximately 20 days (Al Seadi 2002). An
agitator within the reaction vessel mixes the material intermittently. The digestate is de-
watered, with some of the press water being used as an inoculum source and the remainder
being sent to an anaerobic wastewater treatment facility, which also produces biogas.
(Endelmann & Engeli 2005). The Kompogas system has a number of much smaller reference
facilities and would be unlikely to be suitable for the PFI contract.
3.6.2.4. Discussion
Anaerobic Digestion is quantified as energy recovery in the in Best Value Indicators
Consultation Paper 2000/2001 BVP182c and defined as:
―Percentage of the total tonnage of household waste arisings which has been
used to recover heat, power and other energy sources.‖ Used to recover heat,
power and other energy sources means the biological degradation of organic
wastes by anaerobic digestion.
This is interpreted by the author, as every tonne of waste that is used as feedstock for an AD
plant will count as recovery of household waste. This argument is fairly rigid with only one
cause of concern, as with the case of EfW whereby the base ash residue is discounted from
the input tonnage to calculate the recovery tonnage. In a process which uses un-segregated
MSW the level of contamination may be such that it becomes difficult to find a beneficial use
for the digestate (Al Seadi 2002). Under these circumstances, it will be disposed of to
landfill, where because it has been pre-treated, it will present a lower risk of pollution than
raw waste. If this happened, the feasibility of a mixed waste Anaerobic Digestion facility
would be compromised as it would be a very costly option just to dewater the raw MSW.
Digestate produced from pre-segregated waste may have application as a soil conditioner, but
will often require further treatment (composting - ‗maturation‘) to reduce its silage like
odour. Public acceptance of the finished product will determine whether or not there is a
market for anaerobically digested waste and therefore control over contamination is
particularly important. All of the issues relating to marketing compost derived from waste
also relate to digestate. Therefore AD should be seen as a part of the recovery chain rather
than composting.
64
3.6.3. Pyrolysis and thermal gasification
Pyrolysis and thermal gasification are related technologies. Pyrolysis is the thermal
decomposition of organic material at elevated temperatures in the absence of gases such as air
or oxygen (DEFRA 2006). The process, which requires heat, produces a mixture of
combustible gases (primarily methane, complex hydrocarbons, hydrogen and carbon
monoxide), liquids and solid residues. Thermal gasification of MSW is different from
pyrolysis in that the thermal decomposition takes place in the presence of a limited amount of
oxygen or air. The gas which is generated can then be used in either boilers or cleaned up and
used in combustion turbine/generators. The primary area of research for this technology is the
scrubbing of the producer gas of tars and particulates at high temperatures in order to protect
combustion equipment downstream of the gasifier and still maintain high thermal efficiency
(Juniper 2001). Both of these technologies are in the development stage with a limited
number of units in operation. The Hyperion Energy Recovery System operated by the City of
Los Angeles had a system designed to fire dried sewage sludge in a staged fluidized bed
combustor. The resulting gas was then combusted in stages, and the heat was used to turn
water into steam, driving a 10 MW steam turbine-generator. (Lewis et al 2007)
3.6.4. Preferred energy recovery technology
The critical presentation and assessment of EfW, AD, pyrolysis and gasification in the
preceding sections suggests that the best facilities for energy recovery with combined heat
and power would be an EfW facility and an anaerobic digestion facility.
3.7. Level 4 and 5: Landfill and landfill with energy
The last two levels of the waste hierarchy refer to the same method of management, albeit
that there is a favourable distinction towards the utilisation of gases generated in the course of
landfill management, therefore the two levels will be presented as one in this section. Landfill
is a method of solid waste disposal in which waste is buried between layers of soil or
hardcore, as part of a daily management routine, to fill in or reclaim low-lying ground
(Newton 1983). The by products of landfill are leachate and a mixture of gases, to capture
these elements engineering solutions are employed; Figure 3.9 shows one version of the
criteria for landfill construction, Figure 3.10 shows the exposed protective filter medium and
inert material that forms a base layer that allows leachate to move through.
65
Figure 3.9: The profile of double lined landfill (Shevon & Damas 1986)
In the UK, landfill was the predominant method of disposal for MSW in the twentieth
century. As the composition of waste changed over the century, the inputs to landfills
changed from inert wastes, to a much higher proportion of biodegradable municipal wastes
(BMW), BMW has been defined in the Landfill Directive as waste that is capable of
undergoing anaerobic or aerobic decomposition. The burying of BMW in a relatively air tight
environment results in degradation and the creation of multiple gases, commonly known as
landfill gas (LFG) (Allen 2001, Price 2001).
The diagram in Figure 3.9, shows that on top of the lining waste/refuse is deposited. Waste
needs to be landfilled in a certain way to ensure stable construction, and an area for
landfilling is usually identified for a given period, this is area is called a cell, demonstrated by
Figure 3.11. Landfilling in the cell occurs by the waste being deposited and then spread out in
a thin layer in the where it is levelled, compacted and covered periodically with soil or
another inert material. Ditches all around the site capture the surface water before it comes in
contact with the waste. As for rainwater that infiltrates itself into the waste, where it mixes
with contaminants to create a liquid by-product called leachate. This is collected at the
bottom of the cells and is sent to the lagoons for treatment.
66
Figure 3.10: Beddingham Landfill site base construction (Greenfield 2000)
The construction of cells for lining is shown in Figure 3.10 and preparation of the base of a
cell, prior to lining and use is shown and Figure 3.11, the latter figure gives a perspective of
the size of a landfill cell, this cell is predicted that to take 5 years to fill the cell (Wright
2000).
Figure 3.11 Beddingham landfill site: view into a new cell being prepared for lining
(Greenfield 2000)
Protective medium Inert
material
67
3.7.1. Landraise
Landfill sites are predominantly situated in disused mining activities (Qin et al 2001),
however in areas where there are no suitable sites, the method of land raising is employed,
many countries rely on land-raising as the geomorphology is not suitable for anything else,
for example Holland and parts of France. Figure 3.12 shows the creation of a landraise cell in
Le Harve.
Figure 3.12: Le-Harve landraise site cell construction (Greenfield 2001)
3.7.2. The use of landfill gas for the production of energy
LFG is comprised of approximately equal amounts of, CO2 and CH
4a, as well as trace
amounts of other organic compounds generated through decomposition of biodegradable
waste in landfills (Qin et al 2001),. Municipal solid waste landfills were the largest human-
generated source of methane emissions in the UK in 2000 (DETR 2001).Landfill gas is a very
potent greenhouse gas that is a key contributor to global climate change (over 21 times
stronger than CO2), landfill gas also has a short (10-year) atmospheric life. Because methane
is both potent and short-lived, reducing methane emissions from MSW landfills is one of the
best ways to achieve a near-term beneficial impact in mitigating global climate change.
Because of this it makes sense to use the gas for the beneficial purpose of energy generation
rather than emitting it. The capture of LFG is essential to maximise energy recovery. This is
usually undertaken by laying a network of perforated pipelines within the landfill site in the
68
cycle of filling and extracting the gas to a treatment house, whereby removal of most of the
trace organic compounds can occur. Figure 3.13 shows the exposed pipe network at the
Beddingham landfill site in 2000, subsequent management would mean this was buried.
Figure 3.13 Beddingham landfill site gas extraction pipe network (Greenfield 2000)
Once cleaned LFG can be used as fuel in internal combustion engines and gas turbines for
generation of heat and electricity (Qin et al 2001), in many cases, electricity is generated on
site and fed to the national grid, the Beddingham landfill site in Lewes, East Sussex produces
2MW of electricity and exports it to the national grid (M Wright 2000).
3.8. Development of a specification for the award of the ESCC & BHC PFI contract
Analysis of the Waste Hierarchy technologies that could be employed as part of the PFI
process to meet future needs has been made in this chapter. The knowledge gained through
this analysis was used by ESCC and BHC to create a specification to enable the PFI contract
to be awarded. The technical specification for the ESCC & BHC PFI contract was developed
by the author in 1999 taking account of all the drivers and options presented so far and
refined over time up to 2003 when a Service Delivery Plan was created.
The specification for the contract stated that ―the contractor shall develop and implement an
integrated waste management system (IWMS) to receive, treat and dispose of all wastes for
which the Councils have a statutory responsibility‖. The Councils also wanted to pass the risk
of achieving the recovery targets of 40% of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) by 2005 and 66%
Gas flare stack
Gas pipeline
Compacted soil landfill base lining
Landfill daily cover on active site
69
of Household Waste by 2015 to the contractor. In order to award the contract, the councils
set some criteria for evaluating the responses from contractors, these were:
To focus on positive action to protect and improve the environment and prevent
pollution, including measures for the efficient use of energy and the achievement of
sustainable development.
To carry out the Councils‘ statutory duty as WDA‘s under the EPA at least cost to the
environment and the community and maximising the use of waste as a resource.
To integrate waste minimisation, recycling, recovery and composting initiatives into a
future waste disposal contract to reduce the proportion of waste going to landfill and
to conserve energy and raw materials.
To use and promote the waste hierarchy,
The hierarchy was seen to not be a rigid order of priorities, and options provided by the
contractor were considered in the light of Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) and
Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost (BATNEEC). The following
chapter will incorporate some of these principles in the assessment of the existing models and
structure of a new model.
The author would consider that for the PFI contract the following technologies could be
employed to mitigate the target of diverting waste away from landfill:
Waste minimisation programme
a MRF,
open windrow composting,
an In-vessel composting facility,
an Aerobic Digestion facility and
an EfW facility
The application of these facilities is not feasible at this point as there interaction between the
facilities and the waste generated is not understood. A method of planning the application of
these treatment methods is therefore required.
70
3.9. Summary
This chapter has presented the alternatives to landfill available to ESCC and BHC up to 2002.
Each technology has been described and considered as a suitable option for meeting the
drivers to move away from landfill. The chapter has also presented the principles and
objectives it required contractors to fulfil. The next chapter will examine the waste planning
models that could be employed to determine the optimum combination of the technologies
that have been deemed to be suitable to ESCC and BHC for diverting waste from landfill
under a PFI contract.
71
4. CRITIQUE OF CURRENT WASTE PLANNING MODELS
The previous chapters have given an overview of the current waste management structure
within the sub region of East Sussex, the drivers for change and the technologies that could
be utilised to divert waste away from the traditional route of waste disposal, landfill. This
chapter considers how ESCC & BHC can plan the right infrastructure, through a PFI contract,
to move from reliance upon landfill. The chapter will consider the tools that existed in 2002
to help the authorities to make decisions in light of the targets national government have set
as statutory and aspirational. To achieve this, there is a critical review of models for the
modelling of waste mass flow, facility utilisation and the achievement of recycling and
recovery targets. The flaws and merits will be assessed and evaluated against the needs of the
East Sussex sub-region. The need for a new model will be proposed that will enable ESCC
and BHC to make a decision for the construction of infrastructure capable of meeting the
requirements of legislation whilst understanding the complexities and unique characteristics
of the sub-region. The structure, components and assumptions of the new model will be
presented and articulated in chapter 5.
4.1. Needs analysis for a novel waste flow model
Most waste-flow models can be categorised into one of three categories— ―those based on
cost benefit analysis, those based on life cycle analysis (LCA) and those based on the use of a
multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)‖ (A.J. Morrissey and J. Browne, 2003). These
categories are clearly related to the analysis methods used by modellers rather than
characteristics used in the local authorities (LA‘s) by planners and mangers.
It is thus useful to determine which characteristics of the models will be essential to the needs
of the local authority. A workshop session and questionnaire was conducted by the author in
June 2000. The 20 officers in attendance identified the key factors in the workshop and were
asked to individually rank in order of preference the factors they felt should be employed by a
waste mass-flow model. The survey asked each to rank against a 1-5 scoring system, 1 being
highest priority. Table 4.1 summarises the results contained within Appendix 1, by showing
the average priority score, expressed as the mode value.
72
Key factors for optimal model for usage by Local
Authorities
Priority for ease of usage
Format and usability of model 4.2
High quality data input and presentation 2.1
Demonstration of outputs and interactions between
facilities2.0
Evidence and processes included in the collection
service2.0
Understanding of processes to be used 1.6
Ease of data entry aligned to current reporting 1.3
Ease of analysis 1.0
Table 4.1: Priority factors for ease of use by local authority officers (Greenfield 2002)
It can be concluded from Figure 4.1 that usability and presentation of data and results is of
highest priority and these will be used in the comparison of existing models to benchmark
whether a model is suitable for ESCC and BHC purposes
Much research has been conducted on mass-flow models and the complexity of many
technical processes, Abou Najm, (2002) acknowledges ―the variety of management processes
and the existence of uncertainties associated with the number of system components and their
interrelations‖ means the understanding accountability for these individual factors is critical
to obtaining a realistic and accurate model. Tucker and Smith consider that ―in the UK,
diversion of materials from the domestic waste stream still relies on the combined voluntary
behaviours of individual householders‖ (Tucker & Smith 1999). Stypka considers that ―The
collection stage is the most expensive and the most environmentally demanding stage of the
whole process of waste disposal‖ (Stypka 2001), implying that a good model needs to include
components to model the collection stage. It was essential that a model was ―user friendly
and showed results that the user required‖ (Powell 2000), this reinforces the results shown in
Table 4.1.
To populate a model, the user requires accurate data and parameters to model; MSW data
should be evaluated at the beginning of the investigation. An example of the consequences
for planning when using inaccurate date can be found in China, where there were not accurate
weight evaluation systems for MSW in most cities or regions and MSW amounts were
estimated by average payloads of the collecting trucks. Analysis in 2001 showed that
73
changing from estimates to recordable and accurate figures changed the initial calculation of
2 kg/capita/day to 0.78 kg/capita/day, a decrease of 61%% (Kun and Zhiqiang 2001).
The preceding sections show some of the variables that could invalidate results from any
mass-flow model used for planning the PFI contract. With an understanding of the
prioritisation of factors for an optimal model, indentified in Table 4.1, section 4.2 will
critique five existing models.
4.2. Critical review of existing MSW balance models
The following sections review existing MSW mass balance models, using the three categories
Morrissey and Browne suggested, these are considered against the priority factors identified
in Table 4.1. It is not possible to test these models personally as many are costly and require
many months of work to populate, therefore the assessment of the models will be based upon
reviews published in journals and papers.
4.2.1. Cost benefit analysis (CBA) model
A cost benefit analysis is a way of helping to appraise, or assess, the case for a project or
proposal. The process involves, whether explicitly or implicitly, weighing the total expected
costs against the total expected benefits of one or more actions in order to choose the best or
most profitable option. The formal process is often referred to as either CBA (Cost-Benefit
Analysis) or BCA (Benefit-Cost Analysis) (Clift et al 2000, Flyvberg et al 2002).
The Integrated Municipal Waste Model IWM1 developed by White P.R., Franke M., and
Hindle P is considered a tool which seems to meet all the requirements for a cost benefit
analysis (Stypka 2004). The IWM1 model was used by Stypka for the cities of Stockholm
and Krakow, with the intention to ―develop, master and implement a simple, but reliable tool
that will help the decision makers in the analysis process‖. Stypka stated the following points
were the key outcomes of his modelling process using the IWM1 model:
In all analysed cases the environmental burden of the MSW system is significantly
smaller than the economic one.
74
The collection stage is the most expensive and the most environmentally demanding
stage of the whole process of waste disposal.
The model clearly shows recycling has environmental benefits.
Comparison studies of his model with others is very difficult, because in different
systems there are different definitions of the waste and there are different statistical
methods employed,
If the emission integration procedures are improved and verified the model could be a
very useful tool for decision makers.
The model does not take into account the social impact of the MSW management system,
which is the key driving force in the process of decision-making for LA‘s.
Stypka concluded that the results of the analysis from the IMW1 model gave vast amounts of
information, but were rather fragmented and indiscernible. A lot of time and effort was
needed to run the model and with the fragmented and indiscernible results being contrary to
the needs of the criteria in Table 4.1, one must regard this as an unsuitable model. However,
aspects of the model should be utilised, principally the evaluation of financial and
environmental burdens.
4.2.2. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) models
The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) defines an environmental Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) study as the environmental interventions and potential impacts throughout
a product‘s life (i.e., from cradle-to-grave) (Clift et al 2000). LCAs are seen as the solution
for the assessment of the impact of a new infrastructure system on the wider environment.
McDougall et al. (2001) qualifies this as ―they generally offer a system map that sets the
stage for a holistic approach for waste management systems ensuring environmental
improvements can be made‖. Many LCA models recognise that a waste management model
or strategy needs to be sustainable, and it must consider environmental, economic and social
aspects. The model presented by Clift in 2000 and shown in Figure 4.1, demonstrates the
concept of an LCA, the rectangle referred to as no. 2 encapsulates the processes of the mass
balance and the generation of energy, material and waste. It can be concluded that many
factors need to be taken into account for an LCA to be viable, most of this information would
not be available at the start of the PFI process and it would therefore be difficult to run the
LCA.
75
Figure 4.1: System boundaries for measuring and regulating environmental performance
(Clift et al 2000)
Morrissey et al (2003) stated that no model examined considered all three aspects together in
the application of the model and none considered the intergenerational effects of the
strategies proposed. It is evident that Morrissey considers the LCA models already in
existence as being insufficient for enabling an all encompassing view on the impacts of new
infrastructure. Taking this as read would mean that there are no models that would have
sufficient capabilities of meeting the needs of ESCC and BHC, but one cannot consider alone
one interpretation, therefore the following sections analyse existing models.
One LCA model, GaBi4, is described as being most suitable for integration of all
sustainability criteria on a corporate, plant, process or product life-cycle level, indeed it was
seen by them as already being a standard tool for life-cycle evaluations in several branches of
local government worldwide (PE Europe 2003). In their review they concluded that GaBi4
was a powerful, fully-featured sustainability data management and evaluation system. Upon
evaluation GaBi4 doesn‘t consider the sizing criteria against targets and fails to account for
public opinion and perception. This is therefore a model that has significant merits but fails to
deliver on the differentiation of sizing of facilities and targets for recycling and recovery and
will not be suitable for the criteria desired in Table 4.1.
1- Process or plant;
2 -Life Cycle assessment;
M -Material;
E – Energy;
W-Wastes and emissions.
76
The Waste-Integrated Systems for Assessment of Recovery and Disposal (WIZARD) was
developed by Ecobilan in 2000, to easily model alternative waste management systems,
including landfilling, incineration, sorting - recycling, composting and anaerobic digestion, it
was incorporated into the requirements for a PPC permit in 2002 and was considered to be
very technical and unintelligible to the waste officer, let alone a decision maker (Aumonier
2001).
In 2002 the Strategy Unit (SU) Report published by the Cabinet Office developed a
management and evaluation model for MSW. They identified that the availability of up-to-
date and reliable information was a key problem, making the building of MSW Strategy
Models difficult. This resulted in the SU team making assumptions in areas of the model,
―from limited evidence and small scale studies but often supplemented with further assertions
and assumptions‖ Cabinet Office (2002). They concluded that model results would need to be
handled with great care. It is clear from this report and the work undertaken by Kun and
Zhiqiang (2001), that evidence based modelling is crucial and that accurate base data is the
key to having a reasonable chance of modelling an estimate of the impacts of infrastructure
for the future. It would be wrong to rule out the SU model, but it is clear that the model itself
is weak, due to data inadequacies, resulting in a model that hasn‘t been tested to the criteria
the SU team would have wished. Given that the SU team has stated they would want to re-
build the model if new accurate data were to be available, it is therefore the author‘s intention
not to consider this model for the East Sussex sub-region.
4.2.3. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)
In Finland, Tanskanen and Melanen, (2000) reviewed the ―Tool for Analysing Separation
Actions and Recovery‖ (TASAR), and stated that a ―national separation strategy can be
established from 1-4 regional strategies, which all consist of separate strategies for residential
properties and commercial establishments‖. This is very unlike England where there has been
a severe lack of structure for the development of detailed national strategy down to the local
level; this is compounded by those strategies that have been written fail to consider
commercial and industrial waste, the opposite is true when one looks at local development
plans, but again not every sub region or region has a high level of detail.
77
The TASAR model overview is given in Figure 4.2, and when considered alongside the
outcomes of the SU report and Kun and Zhiqiang (2001) report which both show that
accurate data is crucial, it is evident that TASAR has a level of detail that is lacking in
English local authorities.
Figure 4.2: Elements from which a national separation strategy can be compiled in the
TASAR model (R.P. = residential properties, C.E. = commercial establishments) (Tanskanen
and Melanen, 2000).
To support this, East Sussex County Council Waste Local Plan manager Ian Blake, stated that
the ―data on commercial and industrial waste in East Sussex had an accuracy factor of plus or
minus 25%‖. Given that TASAR uses both Commercial and Household waste data, the model
would be inappropriate for use in the East Sussex sub-region, but the concept of the flows in
Figure 4.2 will be essential if no other model is found to be of use.
4.3. Assessment of critical review and relevancy to needs of local authorities
The preceding critique explains the diversity of LCA models and sometime complex
interpretation of the subsequent results, whilst Table 4.1 and the commentary through the
critique shows that users rank ease of analysis and ease of data entry, aligned to current
78
reporting as the highest priorities. The question; ―Is one of the existing LCA models suitable
for local authority use?‖ needs to be answered. To contextualise one must compare
parameters used in existing models against the ease of data entry and subsequent analysis.
Table 4.2 has been created to determine which model, if any, is fit for purpose in relation to
local authority officers in terms of its modelling rigour and applicability. The key parameters
for optimal mass-flow modelling has been developed by analysing the outputs of the five
critiqued models and the needs of local authority, focussing on data entry and the
requirements for achieving delivery of national and local drivers. To achieve a high level of
suitability
Key parameters for optimal mass-flow
modelling IWM1 WISARD GABI 4
Waste growth Yes Yes Yes
Composition of waste stream Yes Yes Yes
What can be recycled Yes Yes Yes
Collection costs Yes Yes Yes
Residual waste management Yes Yes Yes
Process residues Yes Yes Yes
Operating costs Yes Yes Yes
Facilities Yes Yes Yes
capital cost of facilities Yes Yes Yes
Concept of Social aspects Yes Yes Yes
Concept of Public perception No No No
LA Officer compatible without training No No No
Understanding of processes to be used Yes Yes Yes
Ease of data entry aligned to current
reporting No Yes No
Ease of analysis No No No
Suitability as a mass-flow model for
LA use Low Medium Low
Table 4.2: A critical view of existing waste management models compared to the needs of the
East Sussex Sub- Region
The models that have been reviewed in this chapter are complex and non-transparent to the
users; Table 4.2 demonstrates that none of the models are suitable for the requirements of the
local authority, primarily based on the concepts of ease of entry and analysis. It is the opinion
of the author that a new model needs to be developed for the East Sussex area that takes
account of the entire waste management cycle from collection to disposal as well as the
progress, attributes and limitations of current models, but that separates the social and
79
economic variables and focuses on the impact of the facilities on the waste stream. The
evaluation of the social and environmental impacts can then be modelled separately on the
desired scenarios, in a clear and concise model. Most importantly a model needs to be
developed with high visibility of mass balance and the potential capacities of processing
facilities that will be required over the long term, which the user can understand and
manipulate to enable different scenarios to be modelled in a timely and accurate manner.
4.4. Summary of CBA, LCA and MCDA
All the published documents and models reviewed in this chapter show that there is not a
tailored, easy to use, and easily adaptable model, for ESCC and BHC to use to decide which
processes need to be implemented to deliver the drivers identified in chapter 2. Morrissey et
al (2001) identified two important steps in decision making in the area of municipal solid
waste management: the formulation of the problem and the involvement of all relevant
stakeholders in the decision-making process. In the context of East Sussex, the latter process
has been delivered via the Waste Local Plan (1998-2006), and considered alongside existing
models, GABI 4, IWMM, IWM2, WARM and WISARD, would appear to be sufficient to
meet Morrissey‘s criteria. Looking at these models though, most are concerned only with
refining the actual multi-criteria technique itself or of comparing the environmental aspects of
waste management options (recycling, incineration, and disposal). Many of the LCA models
thus focus on complex parameters concerned only with the environmental data, which were
not the criteria highlighted as being most important in Table 4.1. The models then prioritise
the financial data rather than the environmental data and may be forced to base decisions on
those sections they understand rather than the results of the model (Powell 2000). None of the
models can present an easy to use model that allows an authority to size a combination of
facilities to meet a set of targets for the future.
There therefore, appears to be a clear need for a tool that can deliver a strategic overview for
the aid of decision making, which incorporates rigorous modelling assumptions but is also
usable by staff in local authorities who do not have modelling experience but who do have
waste management experience. The next chapter focuses on the results of the construction of
a MSW Mass Balance Model that was designed to meet the criteria of Tables 4.1 and 4.2.
80
5. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MASS BALANCE MODEL (MBM)
The previous chapters have introduced waste, the focus this thesis has on municipal solid
waste and the complexities of managing MSW through collection and disposal. A critical
analysis of the drivers for change, the alternative technical options and the reasoning and
need for the development of a new bespoke Mass Balance Model (MBM) has been presented.
This chapter will explain the development of the MBM, the assumptions used and the results
that were generated and how they were subsequently used for East Sussex County Council
and Brighton & Hove City Council in procuring the PFI contract, up to 2003.
5.1. The Development of the MBM
The MBM was created over a period of three years, between 1999 and 2002 with the purpose
providing a model that allowed East Sussex County Council and Brighton & Hove City
Council to make decisions about the infrastructure it needed to provide for the future
management of MSW and to meet statutory and aspirational waste targets it has set itself. The
results of the MBM would be used to influence the financing of a long term Private Finance
Initiative (PFI) contract. The MBM that is presented here is the final iteration of model and
is the conclusion of many mistakes and format changes. A demonstration of the development
of the model stage by stage and test of the robustness of the MBM will be described in this
chapter through the creation of a reference scenario.
In acknowledging ―the expertise and the data to use complex mathematical models‖ Powell,
(2000) in designing his model states, that it was essential that it was user friendly and showed
results that the user required. In the process of using a model, Nie, states that the user will
requires certain data and information to enable the model to work to achieve the ultimate
goal, and that the reported MSW data should be evaluated at the beginning of the
investigation to allow for the most accurate data (Yongfeng Nie 2004). The MBM has been
designed with these goals as objectives. In addition, users will be able to model different
waste growth scenarios that might occur and scenarios whereby a number of facilities are
utilised in order to determine whether a certain configuration of facilities, plotted against
varying growth profiles, will enable councils to the EU and UK government targets for the
management of Municipal waste.
81
The complexities and subtle issues in interpreting and inputting data into each sub-section of
the MBM are described in full detail in this chapter. However it is useful for the user to have
an overview of the major calculations and assumptions before looking at the details and
information that would be required to run the model.
5.2. MBM description
The MBM was developed to enable any local authority to use the model for the same
purposes, but was built specifically for the use of Brighton & hove City council and East
Sussex County Council. The user should have a desired outcome to model against, for
example, a recovery rate of 67% by the year 2015/16, or landfill void to last 25 years but has
only 4,000,000 m3 of void space. The user can provide any of the following for comparison
against the modelled results:
Recycling rate year by year to be achieved
Recovery rates year by year (including recycling) to be achieved
Total void space available
For example, if the user requires a recovery rate of 67% by 2025, alongside recycling,
composting and anaerobic digestion assumptions, the size of the energy from waste facility
required to meet the waste growth scenario in future years will be able to be determined. The
MBM allow users to understand the implications of facility size and throughput in relation to
available waste for management over the 25 years the MBM can model.
The process map in Figure 5.1 shows all the technologies that can be modelled through the
MBM. The interrelation of the technologies and systems in Figure 5.1 form the principles of
the MBM and allow the user to model a set of scenarios that will determine which scenario is
best to meet the outputs determined. Figure 5.1 demonstrates the interrelation and flow of
waste between different waste treatment technologies or practices. On the left of the figure
there are five categories; home separation, collection, treatment, recovery & marketing and
final disposal, these indicate the methods for managing municipal wastes. Each treatment
method has different applications, which are shown as generic processes, colour coded to the
method, with the specific applications of the method detailed under the generic heading, for
example, a material recycling facility, is a treatment methodology and the practices used in
that technology are separation and screening of materials, with other materials being sorted
through the use of infrared colour separation technologies.
82
Figure 5.1: The components of the integrated waste management system for MBM
The model is constructed in Microsoft Excel and to enable a user to understand the model,
the full MBM is presented in Appendix 2 with a user manual presented in appendix 4. The
MBM is split into 3 principle sections;
Input Sheet,
Calculation sheet and
Results sheet
The three sections for the MBM are clear for the user when modelling but do not allow for
easy description of the process of creating the MBM, nor the interaction between the three
sheets. To allow the user to understand the creation of the MBM, it is necessary to give an
explanation of each stage and the sub-calculations and assumptions contained within.
5.2.1. Input sheet
The input sheet is for entering data for modelling and is shown in Table 5.1, it consists of
four sections; facility throughputs, facility efficiencies, MSW and HW base data and waste
growth scenarios. The sections are colour coded by title and input cells, the dark colour is the
section heading, the yellow cells are for the user to input their data. The parameters
described in Sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 are entered into the MBM through this table. The input
sheet in Table 5.1 uses a the base year of 2002/3, this being first contract year for the ESCC
& B&HCC contract, but this is flexible and other councils can change the start date.
Open
composting
screening
maturation
Reprocessing and
Marketing
Energy Recovery: Mass Burn EFW
blending of input MSWCombustion and energy
generation
Fin
al
Dis
po
sal Landfill
Landfill Landraise
(sub-boxes indicate process employed by
activity
Ho
me
sep
erat
ion
Co
llect
ion Kerbside Collection
AWC Residual
Infrared
Home
Composting
Food
Digestion
Hazardous
Bring Banks
recycling WEEE
Household Waste Recycling
Centre
timber Residual green
Hazardous
Material Recycling Facility (MRF) Anaerobic Digestion (AD)
WEEE
Bulky
recyclingclothes, shoes
and books
In-Vessel
Composting
Screening
Tre
atm
ent
Rec
ove
ry a
nd
Mar
ketin
g
Seperation Screening screening
maturation
maturationSeperation
tran
sfer
&
bu
lkin
g
tran
sfer
&
bu
lkin
g
dry recyclables
Re-Use
83
MRF1 MRF2On-farm
Composting
Anaerobic
DigestorIVC 1
Third
Party
waste
RDF
Plant
Household
Waste
diverted by
use of bring
banks
HWS Bring
banks
Throughput of
EfW 1
EfW 1
residuals
EfW 2
esiduals
85% 85% 100% 50% 100% N/A 35% 100% 100% 69% Base Ash 28% 28%
15% 15% N/A 50% 0% 65% N/A N/A 31%Base ash to
landfill50% 50%
50% 50% N/A 50% 0% 50% 100% N/A N/A 50%
50% 50% N/A 50% 0% 50% 0% N/A N/A 50%
0% 0% N/A 0% 0% 0% 0% N/A N/A 0% Fly ash 3% 3%
(Percentage) (Percentage)Financial
Year
Contract
Year0.00% 0.00% 2002/3 1 - - 5,000 - 19,114 75,000 15,044 - -
2.00% 2.00% 2003/4 2 40,000 - 15,000 - 19,496 75,000 3,836 6,905 -
2.00% 2.00% 2004/5 3 40,000 - 15,000 - 19,886 75,000 3,913 7,044 -
2.00% 2.00% 2005/6 4 40,000 16,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 20,284 75,000 3,991 7,184 -
2.00% 2.00% 2006/7 5 40,000 16,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 20,690 75,000 4,071 7,328 -
1.00% 1.00% 2007/8 6 40,000 16,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 20,897 18,750 4,112 7,401 -
1.00% 1.00% 2008/9 7 40,000 62,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 21,105 - 2,076 7,475 150,000
1.00% 1.00% 2009/10 8 40,000 62,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 21,317 - 2,097 7,550 150,000
1.00% 1.00% 2010/11 9 40,000 62,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 21,530 - 2,118 7,626 150,000
1.00% 1.00% 2011/12 10 40,000 62,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 21,745 - 2,139 10,269 150,000
0.50% 0.50% 2012/13 11 40,000 62,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 21,854 - 2,150 10,321 150,000
0.50% 0.50% 2013/14 12 40,000 62,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 21,963 - 2,161 10,372 150,000
0.50% 0.50% 2014/15 13 40,000 62,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 22,073 - 2,172 10,424 150,000
0.50% 0.50% 2015/16 14 40,000 62,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 22,183 - 2,183 13,095 180,000
0.50% 0.50% 2016/17 15 40,000 62,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 22,294 - 2,193 13,161 180,000
0.50% 0.50% 2017/18 16 40,000 62,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 22,406 - 2,204 13,226 180,000
0.50% 0.50% 2018/19 17 40,000 62,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 22,518 - 2,215 13,293 180,000
0.50% 0.50% 2019/20 18 40,000 62,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 22,630 - 2,227 13,359 180,000
0.50% 0.50% 2020/21 19 40,000 62,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 22,743 - 2,238 13,426 180,000
0.50% 0.50% 2021/22 20 40,000 62,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 22,857 - 2,249 13,493 180,000
0.50% 0.50% 2022/23 21 40,000 62,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 22,971 - 2,260 13,560 180,000
0.50% 0.50% 2023/24 22 40,000 62,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 23,086 - 2,271 13,628 180,000
0.50% 0.50% 2024/25 23 40,000 62,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 23,202 - 2,283 13,696 180,000
0.50% 0.50% 2025/26 24 40,000 62,000 5,000 60,000 30,000 23,318 - 2,294 13,765 180,000
Input column for MW &
HW growth0.0%
Residue to
Beneficial
Use
50% 50%
Waste Growth
Facility efficiencies
Facility Throughputs
Facility parametersTHE MASS
BALANCE MODEL
(MBM) Efficiency of plantEfficiency of plant
0%HW growth
Base figure HW 376,112
Total residues
residues to landfill
residues to efw
residues to benefical
use
Base year MSW & HW figures
Base figure MW 393,271
Table 5.1: The MBM input sheet, with raw data from RS1
84
In table 5.1, data has been entered for annual waste growth projection, two MRFs, an on-farm
composting facility, an anaerobic digestion facility, an IVC composting plant, third party
waste, a RDF facility, bring banks at both the kerbside and in household waste sites and an
EFW. Using the EFW as an example, the percentage of the input tonnage that will become
base ash and fly ash is required, and for the base ash, the percentage of the base ash that will
be used is required. The EFW has residues of 31% (total of both ashes) and 50% of the bash
ash is reused (including metals) and 50% is landfilled. It can also be seen in table 5.1, that
between 2002/3 and 2007/8 there is no tonnage entering the EFW, between 2008/9 and
2014/15, 150,000 tpa will enter the EFW and after that date 180,000 tpa. This level of detail
is required for each facility to enable the MBM to calculate the results the user requires.
5.2.2. The MBM Calculation Sheet
The MBM calculation sheet consists of an Microsoft Excel worksheet containing 116
columns (some formatted columns and others hidden) by 35 rows (including the twenty-five
different years, more or fewer years can be added), these are shown in Appendix 2 as screen
shots. Each column either references an input from the input sheet or is a built in calculation
(which has a set equation or an equation that can be changed depending on the assumption
relevant to the particular equation). The Calculations sheet consists of seven main sections
and is presented in appendix 5, but summarised below:
o Years
o Waste and Waste growth
o Targets and meeting targets
o Recycling and composting
o Energy recovery
o Beneficial Use, and
o Disposal to land.
Each section includes calculations and data input columns, and most sections are calculated
and inputted on a yearly basis. It is important to note that in most cases each component has
its own inherent assumptions that have been explained in chapter 4, or will be expanded in
the follow sections.
85
A decision tree has been developed to show the questions and answers that form the basis of
the calculations within the MBM. Figure 5.4 shows a simplified version of how msw waste
will be treated through the MBM.
Figure 5.2: Decision tree for the mass flow of MSW through the facilities
The MBM uses units of mass or percentages derived from mass to enable comparison of
outputs against targets. Base data was used to generate calculations; the sources are shown in
Table 5.2.
Base data Source of Information Reference in thesis
Waste Data for base year ESCC & B&HCC Waste Team Chapter 1
Waste arising profile ESCC Demographics team Chapter 4
Targets ESCC, DEFRA and European Union Chapter 1
Estimated Landfill capacity ESCC, Viridor and BIFFA Chapter 3
Landfill compact rate BIFFA and Viridor Chapter 3
MRF efficiency Project Integra Chapter 3
On farm composting residual rate KPS composting Chapter 3
Enclosed composting plant residual rate Hampshire waste Services MD Keith Riley Chapter 3
RDF recycling and residual rate ESCC Waste Management Statistics Chapter 3
EFW diversion rate An Introduction to Household Waste
Management - ETSU for the DTI. Chapter 3
EFW residual residue usage Technical Brief from Residua & Warmer
Bulletin - EFW Chapter 3
Table 5.2: Base-data used in MBM
86
5.2.3. Results sheet
The results sheet is a single worksheet that presents the results of the numerous calculations
undertaken by the MBM in a format that enables the user to understand whether the desired
outcome has been achieved. Table 5.3 presents an extract of the results as a list, with the
lower order definition of the result shown, for example, there are eight ways that the amount
of MSW is categorised. A full analysis of the results will be explored in section 5.10.
Result category Lower order definition
What Year? Financial Year
Contract Year
Does the Solution meet the Targets set by the user? Are the Recycling targets met?
Are the Recovery targets met?
Waste Arising
Total Municipal Waste arising per year
Total Household Waste per year
Total Municipal waste other than Household Waste
Total Municipal Waste arising Total Municipal Waste
Contract waste arising
Total Contract Waste
Contract Household Waste
Contract Waste other than Household Waste
Third party waste arising Third party waste
Total Recycling of Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste
Contract waste recycled
Total contract waste Recycled
Contract Household Waste Recycled
Contract Waste other than Household Waste Recycled
Third Party Waste Recycling Third Party Waste (inc Recycling)
Total Recovery of Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste
Contract waste recovered Contract Household Waste Recovery
Contract Waste other than Household Waste Recovered
Third party Household Waste recovered Third party waste recovered
Contract Waste put to Beneficial Use Total Municipal Waste
Total amount of Municipal Waste going to Landfill
Total Municipal Waste
Active waste
Inactive waste
Household Waste, Recycling
Number of tonnes of Household Waste Recycled
Percentage of the Total Household Waste Recycled
Contract targets for Recycling
Energy Recovery (EFW) Total Household Waste
Total Household Waste (%)
Total Recovery
Number of tonnes of Municipal Waste Recovered
Percentage of the total Municipal Waste Recovered
Contract targets for Recycling
Total Capacity of all facilities including Bring Banks Total Municipal Waste
Total tonnage not treated by any of the facilities Total Municipal Waste
Table 5.3: An extract from the MBM results sheet (see pages 99-103 for full detail)
87
The use of the assumptions and starting data enabled the modelling of a waste profile over a
25 year timeframe, the flows of different sub-streams of waste through different technologies,
and the determination of the ultimate processing capacities and calculation of the total void
space required from landfills for the residual waste, whilst calculating performance against
targets are demonstrated in the results sheet.
5.3. The Creation of a Reference Scenario
To demonstrate how the MBM was practically used, and to describe the detailed calculations,
assumptions and results, a reference scenario is presented in the following sections. The
scenario was modelled by the author and used by the Brighton & Hove City Council and East
Sussex County Council procurement team, over the period of 2002 to 2003, as the tool for
evaluating the technical submission of five contractors during the procurement of ESCC and
BHC PFI Integrated Waste Management Services Contract (IWMSC).
In 2003, Brighton & Hove and East Sussex Councils awarded a twenty-five year contract to
the waste management company Veolia, for the provision of an integrated waste management
service entitled the ―Integrated Waste Management Services Contract (IWMSC)‖. Veolia set
up a special purpose vehicle (SPV), called Veolia South Downs (VSD) to manage the service
over the lifetime of the contract. This is similar to a franchise, whereby a guarantee would
satisfy the contracting party (councils) that any debt or problems will be covered by the
parent company (Veolia Environmental). The contract was signed with VSD on 31st March
2003 for a contract sum of £1 billion over a 25 year period by means of a Private Finance
Initiative (PFI) agreement. This was underwritten by DEFRA who committed to releasing
£49 million of funding to the Councils over the contract period, in order to supplement the
capital cost of the facilities.
During 2002 and 2003 the MBM was used to test 8 different scenarios, based upon 8
different technical solutions for diverting waste from landfill and five waste growth profiles
as shown in Figure 5.2; High, High-Medium, Medium, Low and base case. A total of 40
scenarios were run through MBM in the period 2002-2003. Rather than describing all 40
models, one set of parameters will be used to show how the MBM was created and used; the
88
scenario chosen also demonstrates how the MBM was practically used. The reference
scenario shown is the technical solution agreed through the PFI process and will be described
as RS1 throughout the remainder of the chapter.
5.4. Reference Scenario 1 (RS1)
To demonstrate RS1, the model has been broken down into five distinct stages of collation or
calculation, these relate to the three parts of the MBM, but in addition describe some of the
assumptions, correlations and calculations used. The five stages are:
Stage 1: Initial Waste Mass Data (Starting data and growth modelling)
Stage 2: Individual Facility and Process Throughputs
Stage 3: Calculation of targets and required landfill void
Stage 4: Testing the MBM
Stage 5: The MBM results sheet and graphical outputs
There follows an explanation of each stage and the sub-calculations and assumptions.
5.5. Stage 1: Initial waste mass data (starting data and growth modelling)
The first stage of the RS1 describes the parameters that are used to determine the amount of
waste that arises each year in the model. This stage is critical as all assumptions about facility
capacity will be determined by how much waste is modelled. The information required for
this stage is:
raw data for the base year
waste growth profiling
As demonstrated by the critique in section 4.2, accurate raw data is crucial, but it will be
demonstrated that the accurate projection of waste mass arising through a considered waste
growth profile is also essential. The timescale (number of years the model will project
forward) for modelling is also required, the IWMSC uses a 25 year projection and this
timeframe is modelled in RS1.
89
5.5.1. Raw data for the base year
The base year for the model needs to be set to allow the model to operate and should be the
last set of accurate figures the authority has recorded for a year. RS1 is based on the
information required to model the facilities required for the PFI contract (IWMSC) and
2002/03 will be used as the base year (Chapter 5 will present a second reference model with
updated Figures). The ESCC & BHC historical data required for the model is as follows:
Tonnes of HW in 2002/3
Tonnes of MSW in 2002/3
Tonnes of HW & MSW recycled in 2002/3
Tonnes of HW & MSW composted in 2002/3
Tonnes of HW & MSW sent to landfill in 2002/3
Most up-to-date compositional analysis
5.5.2. Waste growth profiling
The year on year generation of MSW is unlikely to grow at a steady rate and the prediction of
future MSW mass is an inexact science. DEFRA states ―It is not statistically robust to make
forward projections for twenty years on the basis of even ten years‘ data‖. The conventional
approach to forecasting reflects the limited understanding of exactly how many of the
underlying factors influence waste growth with profiles being based more on the historical
profiles than the impacts of future decisions.
A waste growth profile is normally expressed as a percentage increase or decrease for every
year to be modelled, except the base year. The mass of MSW and HW is calculated from the
―base year‖ using the growth percentage for each subsequent year. In the MBM separate
growth profiles for HW and MSW can be modelled, in RS1, the assumption has been made
that both will grow at the same rate. The three distinct contributing factors associated with
generating a waste growth profile, lifestyle choices of the individual, exogenous factors and
historical data. The following sections will explore each factor that will influence the
generation of a single percentage point figure for one year.
90
5.5.2.1. Lifestyle choices of the individual
In 2006, Maunder et al, after extensive consultation compiled ―twelve key drivers and trends
that would have greatest impact (either negatively or positively) on household volume and
waste‖ up to 2020, these are:
Increase in consumer affluence
Increase in single society living
Culture of lifestyle change (e.g. house moves, divorce retirement etc)
Growth of the ‗experience‘ economy (e.g. spending on experiences
rather than goods)
Shortening product lifestyle
Growth of tele-working and the knowledge economy
Increasing longevity
Lifestyle choices of the ‗Baby Boom‘ generation
Growth of online convenience shopping
New regulations and legislation
Perceived effect of climate change
Increase in ethical consumption
These are factors that are very difficult to quantify in real terms and considerable research,
going back to the sixteenth century for some factors, population increase, for example, has
shown that predictions are difficult. One of the most famous population researchers was
Thomas Malthus, who studied population growth in the 1770s. In his 1798 Essay on the
Principle of Population; Malthus argued that human populations tend to grow exponentially,
while food production is limited by land available for agriculture. The impact of population
growth on generation of waste, whilst being difficult to predict, apparently does show an
empirical link. If a household generates 1 tonne of waste per annum, it can be concluded that
if a hundred new homes were to be built in a given area, an increase in waste generated of
100 tonnes would occur every year. For the purposes of RS1 these factors will be
incorporated where feasible and explained in further detail in Section 5.4.4.
91
5.5.2.2. Exogenous contributing factors
These are much broader in their nature but have correlations with the life style factors; all are
annually changeable and difficult to predict, therefore for the development of RS1, these
factors have not been included. The exogenous impacts are defined as:
Public Holidays
Weather
Council waste prevention activities
Sporting events and consumption of food and drink
5.5.3. Historical data
Using historical data will enable a ―waste growth trend‖ to be determined; the term ‗trend‘
should not be taken to mean ‗growth over the last year‘, but stable patterns over a period of
years. A trend in growth needs to be measured over a period of years, ideally 4 – 5 years;
Table 5.4 shows that the total MSW generated per annum has increased in East Sussex over a
seven year period.
Authority 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02
Average
increase over 5
years
Difference in waste
between 1997/98
and 2001/2
383,958 380,473 388,241 376,779 377,743
105,362 102,232 90,571 89,237 89,304
38,118 33,871 37,602 22,331 23,418
143,480 136,102 129,843 113,339 114,232
26,392 29,981 30,828 32,135 31,603
29,737 31,175 31,834 33,322 33,394
57,668 61,286 63,579 65,806 62,399
32,819 33,885 35,148 37,171 33,572
26,727 27,504 28,683 30,503 30,727
173,343 183,831 190,072 198,937 192,104
67,135 59,239 66,024 64,120 71,407
ESCC Total 240,478 244,370 258,398 263,440 263,511 2.4% 9.6%
2.7%
1.6%
10.8%
6.4%
4.9%
3.1%
2.1%
12.3%
-0.4%
-3.8%
-9.6%
-5.1%
-15.2%
-38.6%
-20.4%
-1.6%
Wealden
Rother
Hastings
ESCC HWRS
19.7%Eastbourne
2.3%
15.0%
0.6%
3.7%
Total ESCC & BHC MSW
BHC collected
BHC HWRS
ESCC collected
BHC Total
8.2%
Lewes
Table 5.4: MSW arising and growth rates for all ESCC and BHC authorities 1997-2002
(ESCC 2002)
Analysis of Figure 5.4 shows there are anomalies to the figures that may look extreme if
looked at individually. In 1999/00, the level of MSW arising in ESCC and BHC is much
larger than any other year; this is partly due to the amount of trade waste entering the CA
sites in both authorities being unrestricted and increasing significantly possibly due to the
92
impact of the increase in landfill tax meaning companies wanted to dispose of waste for free
at the HWRS. This general increase in waste is also seen in amount collected by all the
WCAs, with the exception of BHC, who had imposed a ban on trade waste being collected
with household waste. This policy was introduced to kerb the practice of commercial
premises paying for two bags of waste to be collected and then putting out 10. The impact of
the under payment was both financial and data compromising, the latter meaning that the
extra 8 bags would count as household waste, rather than commercial waste. The impact of
this policy resulted in 12,000 tonnes of waste not being counted as household waste.
The following year, the authorities banned trade waste from entering the HWRSs and that is
demonstrated by a 40% reduction in waste entering the BHC HWRS. The historical data will
be used to influence the generation of the waste growth profile, but due to the impact of
policies and categorisation will not form the fundamental base data for prediction. The main
data set that appears to be consistent is the waste arising in the WCAs (except Brighton) grew
2.7% over five years; this growth rate will be used for generating a future growth model.
5.5.4. Generation of a growth profile
Each of the three waste growth factors have perceived and very real impacts on waste growth.
Rather than model one scenario which is assumed to definitively predict the total amount of
waste generated in 2028/29 (RS1 end year) it is more prudent to have a range of scenarios
that will allow the opportunity for sensitivity analysis. The factor that influenced the waste
growth scenarios the most was household growth. The planning authorities developed three
housing growth scenario in 1999, Low – policy based model, Medium – housing based model
and High – migration led model. These profiles were influenced by government targets for
new housing and reflected the difference between council policies and anticipated high
migration level. The three profiles are shown in Figure 5.3.
93
Figure 5.3: Housing growth scenario for ESCC and BHC (ESCC 1999)
The housing growth scenarios were used in the creation of the RS1 growth profiles. The
information available was combined with knowledge of factors that would impact waste
collected, for example, home composting and with historical waste growth figures, shown in
Table 5.4, to generate a base case waste growth profile.
Five blended growth profiles were created that took account of all the factors demonstrated in
Table 5.4 and Figure 5.3, with two additional extreme scenarios created to try to reflect every
eventuality. The trend of the baseline scenario was that the increase in waste per annum
would diminish over the period up to 2025 and that the significant reduction in the increase in
waste would occur after 2011, when the effect of the landfill directive would begin to tell.
Figure 5.4 shows the five profiles that were developed to test the impacts of waste arising on
deliverability of targets and flexibility of capacity size:
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.6%
0.7%
0.8%
0.9%
1.0%
1.1%
Bas
e
98
/99
99
/00
00
/01
01
/02
02
/03
03
/04
04
/05
05
/06
06
/07
07
/08
08
/09
09
/10
10
/11
11
/12
12
/13
13
/14
14
/15
15
/16
16
/17
17
/18
18
/19
19
/20
20
/21
21
/22
22
/23
23
/24
24
/25
25
/26
26
/27
An
nu
al
Gro
wth
(%
)
Finacial Year
Low - Policy Based Model
Mid - Building Led Model
High - Migration Led Model
94
Figure 5.4 Growth rate scenarios used for sensitivity analysis
The base scenario in Figure 5.4, taking account of all factors, would be considered the most
likely growth profile and was used as the reference scenario for RS1.
5.6. Stage 2: Individual facility and process throughputs
The MBM has been developed on a Microsoft Excel platform, some of the calculations that
are explained in this section are based on the mathematical solutions that are unique to Excel.
Figure 5.1, identifies the facilities and treatments that can be modelled in the MBM, however,
for RS1, only the six major facilities are required to be explained and will be modelled in
RS1. Each facility has been described in chapter 3 and will perform differently depending
on the configuration of the individual facility. The six facilities to be modelled in RS1 are:
Material Recycling Facility (MRF)
On-farm Composting
In-Vessel composting (IVC)
Anaerobic Digester (AD)
EfW (Mass Burn Incineration)
Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF)
95
In addition to the six facilities, the amount of space required for waste to be landfilled will be
determined by the MBM. For modelling purposes each facility needs to have capacity from
the outset to enable achievement of a future target, the facility should therefore be large
enough from the date of construction to allow for waste growth. In some cases this will result
in the years preceding the target year achieving a much higher performance than is necessary.
As MBM is a mathematical model, the types of the facility are immaterial, but, the
assumptions used for each facility are crucial.
Facilities size and mass
balance assumptionsUnits MRF
On-farm
Composting
Enclosed
composter
(IVC)
RDF PlantAnaerobic
Digester EfW
Capacity of facility tpa 40,000 5,000 30,000 75,000 60,000 180,000
Efficiency of facility % 85% 100% 95% 35% 50% 69%
Total residues % 15% 0% 5% 65% 50% 31%
residues to landfill % 0% 0% 0% 100% 40%
residues to EFW % 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%
residues to BU % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Residues to Recycling
or further processing %0% 0% 0% 0% 60%
Base Ash (inc metals) % 28%
Base ash to landfill % 50%
Base Ash to BU % 50%
Fly ash to Haz landfill % 3%
Table 5.5: Facility capacity and efficiencies used within RS1
For RS1 individual facility types are modelled against the facilities proposed as a solution
under the PFI procurement and the evaluation of facilities undertaken in chapter 3. In the
RS1 each of the facilities has a section of calculations that will be contextualised as a
description of the excel model and the calculations contained within that section. Table 5.5
shows each of the facilities used within RS1 and the percentage efficiencies for each process.
Shaded cells are not required for that facility. The facilities and efficiencies shown within
Table 5.5 exclude assumptions on landfill and this will be explained later in the chapter.
5.6.1. Material Recycling Facilities (MRFs)
The MBM has made created to allow for four possible MRFs, this assumption is made as
larger scale MRFs are be built to benefit from economies of scale, and for an area the size of
ESCC and BHC, two MRFS would be sufficient, but to allow for use by other larger
authorities four have been included. Each has the ability to have a different efficiency or to
96
not be used at all, for RS1 two medium sized MRFs of 40,000 and 62,000 t.p.a. have been
modelled. The MRF section determines three outputs; mass of recycled waste, mass of
residual waste and destination of residual waste. For each year in the model relating to
recycling there are two calculations used. The amount of waste recycled is determined from
the efficiency of the MRF and the mass of household waste delivered to the MRF as follows:
HWR = HWD * HEF
Where:
HWD = Household Waste delivered to MRF
HWR = Household waste recycled
HEF = Efficiency of MRF
For MRF One, with a capacity of 40,000 tpa, the calculation is thus:
Total HW recycled: 40,000 * 0.85 = 34,000tpa
For this MRF, 34,000 t.p.a. would be sent for recycling and 6,000 tpa would be classed as
residual and would need to be allocated for in the MBM. The model allocates the residues
from the MRF depending on availability of other facilities to either landfill or EFW on a year
by year basis. If the EFW is operational; all residues from the MRF will be delivered to the
EFW, when not operational, the residue will be delivered to landfill
In the MBM the equation that translates the previous section uses an ―IF‖ statement (MS
Excel), it is necessary to demonstrate how the ―IF‖ statement is used in the MBM so that if
other modellers wishing to replicate the equation outside of Excel can. The explanation of the
equation is a follows:
MRFR = IF (EFW1+ EFW2=0, 0, HWD-HWR)
where:
MRFR = MRF Residue to EFW
EFW1 = Throughput of EFW 1 in tonnes;
EFW2 = Throughput of EFW 2 in tonnes;
HWD = Total MRF throughput; and
HWR = Household waste recycled at MRF
97
The equation if converted to text would read as:
―The MRF residue to EFW equals; if the total capacity of EFW1 and EFW2 equals nought,
then the answer will be nought, if however EF1 plus EFW2 is greater than nought, then the
answer for the cell will be the total MRF throughput, minus household waste recycled at the
MRF”
Numerically, if EFW1 had a capacity of 100,000 tpa in 2011/12, and the MRF had a capacity
of 40,000tpa, with an efficiency of 85%, 6,000 tpa would be sent to the EFW. This equation
would be calculated in one cell on the spreadsheet and would read as 6,000. Each of the
variables would be contained in the input sheet and be linked to be cell references using
letters and numerals.
5.6.2. Open composting
Composting has been identified in chapter 3 of being of various technologies, enclosed, open
and on farm. For the base case, an enclosed compost facility and an open facility (windrow)
have been modelled. In RS1, windrow composting accounts for diversion of 15,000 tpa of
MSW, the model uses the efficiency figure of 100% to undertake a simplistic calculation of
mass multiplied by efficiency, thus for every tonnes deemed to enter the windrow composter,
all will be counted by the model as being composted.
5.6.3. In-vessel composting
In-vessel composting systems vary according to type, feedstock and operator capability,
chapter 3 describes the attributes of the systems available commercially with reference to the
most suitable feedstock for particular solutions. RS1 has modelled an IVC to have the same
impact as a windrow system, thus, every tonne entering the facility is assumed to be diverted
completely with no solid residues, giving the simple equation:
Composted = Mass * Efficiency
In the case of a 30,000 IVC facility the amount of composting entering the facility and being
composted would equate to:
30,000 * 1 = 30,000 tpa
98
5.6.4. Energy recovery
The section in the model relating to energy recovery is probably one of the most contentious
issues, not in terms of the way the model works, but because of public perception, discussed
in chapter 3. Following this discussion it was decided that only two commercially proven
types of energy recovery (excluding landfill gas reclamation) anaerobic digestion and energy
from waste (mass burn incineration), would be used for RS1. A description of the parameters
for each follows.
5.6.4.1. Anaerobic Digestion (AD)
An AD plant can vary a great deal in efficiency; which is entirely dependant on the quality of
the input to the facility. If a good quality feed stock is used, the production of recyclable
material and energy will be high. If a mixed MSW fraction is used the resultant biodegraded
product will be sufficient only for landfill cover and non-compost uses (composting
association 2000). In RS1, the assumption is made that the AD uses mixed MSW for the
input, with a reference capacity of 60,000 tpa. This is the only economically amount viable
for this input, as under current collection methods, there would not be enough biodegradable
waste separated from the household stream using projections to have a dedicated bio-waste
input. The material balance in Figure 5.5 shows flow of materials through one type of
anaerobic digestion system, this will be used in RS1.
Figure 5.5 AD mass balance diagram (Ostrem 2004)
99
The moisture content of MSW is normally between 50 and 65%, and with normal AD
operating conditions needing 75%, water must be added. This is provided by dewatering the
final solid digestate and recirculation back to the mixing tank. Figure 5.5 shows that this
amount of additional water can be supplied entirely by recycled process water, thereby saving
money and resources for the plant. The disadvantage of using strictly recycled process water,
however, is that salts can concentrate in the water and remain in the resultant digestate. Most
plants use a combination of fresh and process water (Cluff, 2003). The exception is in
locations where water is a valuable commodity, such as Israel (Finstein, 2003).
RS1 includes one facility of 60,000 tpa, with an input mixed waste MSW. This will mean that
a separation process will need to be undertaken prior to the waste being fed into the AD
facility. The assumption has been made that following processing in a DANA drum 50% of
the MSW will be sent to the AD, with remainder being processed for recycling or sent to
landfill (OWS 2000). The DANO drum is a large scale separation process and is assumed to
take 100% of the MSW sent to the AD facility, process it and divert two fractions, one to the
AD facility and one for further recycling or landfill. Of the material that does enter the AD
facility, 42.3% is assumed to be diverted from landfill as digestate (OWS 2000). As with the
MRF calculations, there is a basic calculation for each year of the model, followed by a
complex calculation to distribute the residual waste amongst other facilities.
MSWAD = ADM * AEF
Where:
MSWAD = MSW sent for anaerobic digestion
ADM = MSW delivered to AD facility
AEF = Efficiency of DANO Drum
IN RS1 the MSW sent to the AD facility is 60,000 resulting in the following calculation:
MSWAD: 60,000 * 0.5 = 30,000tpa
Of the 30,000 tpa sent to the AD facility 42.3% is recovered as digestate
100
Digestate: 60,000 * 0.423 = 25,380tpa
The result of this equation means that 34,620 tpa residual material of a largely combustible
nature needs to either landfilled or recovered as biogas. RS1 assumes that 13% of the residual
material is bio gas and the remaining 43.7% is process loss, as waste water. For the purpose
of calculating the recovery target in the MBM, recovery means biodegradable waste that
enters the digestion process and thus this distinction is not relevant for reporting targets.
5.6.4.2. Energy from Waste (EFW)
The EFW section of the model is very similar to that of the AD, but, in the case of the EFW,
the recovery of energy is very high at 69% (CNIM 2000). Where metal recycling is possible
this normally accounts for 2% of the inputs, the remainder is base ash 26%, which can reused
or put to beneficial use, and fly ash (3%), which has to be disposed of in special waste landfill
sites. The mass flows used in the RS1 are contained in Figure 5.6:
Figure 5.6: Mass flow diagram for parameters to be used in EFW section RS1 (adapted from
CNIM 2000)
In RS1, two EFW facilities are modelled; the principles of the calculations are the same and
therefore only one explanation of the calculations is required. EFW1 has a maximum capacity
of 180,000, with the energy recovery efficiency stated in Tables 5.5 and 5.6 resulting in the
following calculation:
MSWEF = EFM * EEF
101
where:
MSWEF = MSW having energy recovered
EFM = MSW delivered to EFW
EEF = Efficiency of Anaerobic Digestion facility
MSWEF: 180,000 * 0.69 = 124,200 tpa
The 124,200 tpa will be contribute to the calculation of energy recovery whilst the remaining
55,800 tpa will need to be subdivided into component parts to demonstrate onward movement
of residual materials. The calculation that separates these fractions is similar to that of the
AD, but with an extra permutation. There are five possible destinations for the residual post
combustion; three are determined by the type of facility and two are dependant on availability
of markets for inert material and hazardous alkaline fly ash for neutralisation of acids, the
five are:
Base ash to landfill
Base ash to road base construction
Fly ash to acid neutralisation
Fly ash to landfill
Metals for recycling
The relative efficiencies for the five are summarised in Table 5.5 and apply for every year of
the model, with the exception of the throughput which may vary according to MSW delivered
to the facility. Table 5.6 uses the example of 2015/16 when the EFW is assumed to be fully
operational:
Facilities size and mass
balance assumptions
Units EfW
Capacity of facility tpa 180,000
Throughput of the facility tpa 180,000
Energy recovered % 69%
Total residues % 31%
Base Ash % 26%
Base ash to landfill % 50%
Base Ash to BU % 50%
Metals from Base ash % 2%
Fly ash to Haz landfill % 2%
Fly ash to beneficial use % 1%
Table 5.6: EFW parameter assumption for RS1 for the year 2015/16 (CNIM 2000)
102
For 2015/16 these assumptions yield the following:
MSW recovered: 180,000 * 0.69 = 124,200
Base ash generated: 180,000 * 0.26 = 46,800
Metals generated: 180,000 *0.02 = 3,600
Fly ash generated: 180,000 *0.03 = 5,400
The bash and fly ash can then be further subdivided:
Incinerator Bottom Ash (IBA) to landfill: 46,800*0.6 = 28,080
IBA to beneficial use 46,800*0.6 = 18,720
Fly ash to hazardous landfill: 5,400*0.33 = 3,618
Fly ash to beneficial use: 5,400*0.67 = 1,782
The series of calculations shown above are undertaken in eight different cells, for every year
modelled in RS1, with subsequent safeguard checks and summarising cells, similar to that
shown for the AD plant.
5.6.4.3. Landfill
Landfill is the sump for all untreated MSW or for the residues of processes with no further
treatment capabilities. Once the total number of tonnes requiring landfill has been identified,
the total landfill void required for the waste needs to be calculated. This is done in two steps.
Firstly the density of MSW is calculated and then the void required for engineering works, is
added to give an overall void capacity for the waste. Three streams of MSW are landfilled in
RS1; bulky HWRS residue, domestic collected waste, and residual treatment waste. The
streams have different compaction characteristics which influences the mass/m3, which in
turn influences the amount of void space required. To calculate the landfill void required for a
tonne of waste being sent to landfill, the following factors for each of the three streams need
to be calculated:
Mass per m3
Percentage of 1 tonne of MSW sent to landfill
103
The assumption is from a waste compositional analysis made at Beddingham landfill, Lewes,
in 1999, and are summarised in Table 5.7. The Table estimates the content of one tonne of
MSW in 2010/11, when there will still be a large element of untreated waste being sent to
landfill. This is represented by the HWRS and MSW rows, these percentages will change
over the course of the 25 years as the amount of untreated waste reduces.
Source of waste Percentage of total
stream Tonnes per m
3 Calculation Tonnes per m
3
HWRS 25% 0.5 0.5 * 25% 0.125
Domestic 60% 0.8 0.8 * 60% 0.480
Residual 15% 1.5 1.5 * 15% 0.225
100% 0.83
Table 5.7: Volume of one tonne of waste being sent to landfill (Viridor 1999)
The density of MSW has been assumed to be 0.83 tonnes per m3 meaning that for every
100,000 tonnes of waste landfilled 120,482 m3 of void will be required. To protect the
environment, the void space needs to be engineered with a lining of composite, as described
in section 3.4 and then an additional 10% of inert material will be required for engineering
purposes (Viridor 1999). Thus for every tonne of waste landfilled, 1.22 m3 of void space will
actually be required. The total void capacity required, is therefore:
Volume of waste (m3) *1.22
Once the equations for the density and engineering have been calculated, a cumulative total
of void required over the lifetime needs to be calculated, this will be demonstrated in section
5.7.5. Stage 2 has so far shown the detail required for some of the main facilities within the
model, there are a few minor facilities or streams of waste/recyclables that do not need
detailed investigation, they are summarised below:
5.6.5. Bring banks
There are two types of bring banks site, those operated by the WCAs at dedicated sites in
their individual areas, and banks placed in HWRSs by the WDAs. For RS1, the assumption
has been made that current facilities will remain and usage will increase because once the
public recycle at the kerbside they tend to use bring facilities more (Read 1999). After the
MRF is modelled to open, a substantial amount of bring bank collected waste would be
104
delivered to the MRF instead of being bulked up at a depot and being sent directly to a
reprocessing facility. A small percentage of bring bank material will still go direct to market
and the prudent view is that 1% of the total HW arising will be bring banks delivered material
direct to market (Read 1999).
5.6.6. Non governmental organisation (NGO) recycling
The concept of NGO recycling is not an unusual one in local authorities, normally the
recycling is undertaken by charities, for example OXFAM, the Salvation Army and the Scout
Association, but in Brighton the community recycling group MAGPIE collect recyclables. If
a NGO recycles MSW and therefore diverts it from landfill the WDA is obliged to pay the
NGO a recycling credit for the each tonne they collect and recycle (DETR 2002). In RS1 it is
assumed that all NGO recycling is waste that has been recycled which the WDA then pays a
recycling credit for.
5.6.7. Beneficial use and diversion from landfill
The beneficial use and diversion from landfill section is a small section of RS1 that calculates
the total amount of waste diverted away from landfill, other than by being recycled or
recovered. This is calculated by adding the total number of tonnes recovered to the amount of
waste put to beneficial use from the AD and EFW facilities. The model uses the assumption
that all materials classified as beneficial use will be sent directly to market with no residue,
thereby meaning there is no calculation, only a sum.
5.7. Stage 3: Relative contributions of facilities and processes to overall outputs
The fundamental purpose of the development of the MBM has been to allow practitioners to
model a set of assumptions against drivers for change; in this case targets set by government.
Stage 2 described the detailed calculations and resultant outputs for each of the facilities
modelled within RS1. Stage 3 collates the outputs from each of the facilities that are the
same, to allow categorisation as recycling, energy recovery or landfill. These categories
reflect the national indicators for performance measurement for WDAs and WCAs.
105
Table 5.8 shows the categories that the outputs from stage 2 will be summarised as, the
demonstration of the calculations to achieve the types of output shown is not required as they
are a series of basic additions, but will be used in RS1.
Category of output Type of output units
Recycling
Facility throughput tpa
Total recycling tpa
Total residues to EFW tpa
Diversion of Waste from landfill via recycling %
Energy recovery
Facility throughput tpa
Total energy recovery tpa
Residues to beneficial use tpa
Total Municipal (Contract) recovered %
Landfill
Total Waste going to landfill tpa
Percentage of Waste Landfilled tpa
Total void space required m3
Table 5.8: Output categories found in RS1
An explanation of how each output is calculated follows and the detailed calculations
showing the agglomeration of the outputs can be found in appendix 2:
5.7.1. Use of targets for comparison
In RS1, the targets used are those applicable to ESCC and BHC as described in chapter 2 and
as set by national government (DETR 2000b), they are summarised below:
By 2005 to recycle or compost at least 25% of Household Waste, and to
recover value from 40% of Municipal solid waste
By 2010 to recycle or compost at least 30% of Household Waste and to
recover value from 45% of Municipal solid waste
By 2015 to recycle or compost at least 33% of Household Waste and to
recover value from 67% of Household Waste
The recycling and recovery calculations used are standardised throughout the country by
DEFRA, the process for calculating each of these targets is described in the following
sections:
106
5.7.2. Calculation of the recycling and composting rate
The recycling rate for the area is the result of all activities that divert waste through recycling
and composting technologies. There are 7 contributors to the total recycling rate, they are:
Household Waste recycled at the MRF's,
Household Waste recycled at the IVC,
Household Waste recycled at the open composter
Household Waste recycled at the WCA bring banks,
Household Waste recycled at the HWRS Bring banks,
Household Waste recycled by NGOs, and
Recycling undertaken at the RDF plant
The recycling rate is defined as:
Recycling rate = Total household waste recycled (tonnes)
Total amount of household waste arising (tonnes)
In RS1, the result of this equation is compared in the summary sheet to see if the recycling
target for that year has been achieved. This equation is used in RS1 to determine the
predicted recycling rate for the configuration of facilities modelled for a period of 25 years.
5.7.3. Calculation of the recovery rate
The recovery rate is calculated by adding the recycled and composted materials to the mass
of MSW used to generate energy in that year and dividing by either the total household waste
arising or the total municipal solid waste arising, depending on the year. The targets in 5.7
show that the recovery rate should be calculated against municipal solid waste up to 2014,
after that point household waste should be used.
The numerators for recovery rate pre 2014 are:
The seven contributors to total household waste recycled and composted
Any non-household waste recycled or composted
The MSW diversion from landfill (excluding residues) from EFW
The MSW diversion from landfill (excluding residues) from AD
The MSW diversion from landfill (excluding residues) from RDF
107
The recovery rate is then defined as:
Recovery Rate Post 2015/16 = Total municipal solid waste recovered (tonnes)
Total amount of municipal solid waste arising (tonnes)
The results for the recovery rate will also be compared to government targets in the summary
sheet. The values generated are then used by the WDA to sculpt a strategy that is based upon
numerous different technologies to divert MSW away from landfill.
5.7.4. Comparator of outputs vs. required outcomes
The model has been designed to allow a user to see at a glance whether the particular set of
inputs to the model (efficiencies, facility throughout and waste growth scenarios) meet the
targets entered. In order to enable this, the model calculates the recycling, composting and
recovery rates and uses the following equation to determine whether the target has been met:
AOT = RRR -PRR
where:
AOT = Achievement of target
RRR = Required recycling rate
PRR = Predicted recycling rate
If the answer to the equation is positive, the model will show ―OK‖ under the column
heading ―are the recycling targets met?‖ for that particular year, if negative, it will show
―NO‖, this function meets one of the fundamental criteria requested in Table 4.1.
5.7.5. Calculation of landfill volume requirements
In stage 2 it was demonstrated that the summation of the residual outputs from all facilities
equated to the total amount of MSW being sent to landfill. The total may have been derived
from five or six different facilities/streams and is not deemed to be homogenous, as
demonstrated in section 5.6.4.3. The calculation in RS1 for the total void space required in a
single year is the addition of the following parameters:
MSW residue from the MRF's,
MSW residue from the IVC,
108
MSW residue from the open composter
MSW residue from the RDF plant
MSW residue from the EFW
MSW residue from the AD
The total void required then needs to be compared to the void space left in the area, RS1 will
model the total void available in East Sussex to be 2.7 million m3 (WLP).
5.8. Stage 4: Testing the MBM
As part of the construction process of the MBM a testing regime was undertaken to ensure
that the MBM had been created to deliver accurate results. To achieve this, a set of scenarios
and tests were run through the MBM to ensure the robustness of the parameters of the model.
The MBM was tested over a four month period, in two stages; mathematical correctness and
MBM flexibility.
5.8.1. Mathematical correctness
The first stage of the testing involved undertaking a check that every equation worked; this
was a process that checked every equation in the EXCEL model to ensure accuracy, in
addition, a safety equation was also built into the model to ensure the results of significant
multiple calculations were compared to the original number, thus ensuring that all elements
of the calculations were captured. For example, the individual throughputs and efficiencies
for all facilities, including landfill, should total the MSW projected to be managed in that
year. All the tests were conducted using the 5 waste growth scenarios shown in Figure 5.4
and all showed that the MBM was capable of be flexible for different growth rate scenarios.
A series of tests were also run that compared manually calculated results with the results
from the MBM, accuracy to 4 decimal places was deemed to accurate.
5.8.2. MBM flexibility
The second stage of the testing was to run a set of scenarios that was plausible to the
authorities, to achieve this; eight scenarios with different technical configurations were run
through the MBM. These 8 options were designed to test each of the input categories and
again were compared to manually calculated results. To ensure that results were comparable,
109
a single base waste growth scenario was used, this was the same scenario used within the
RS1 option. The MBM was run for 25 years with varying technical solutions in each year; the
results from one year of modelling are shown in Table 5.9.
2015/2016 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7 Scenario 8
TOTAL WASTE (tpa) 443,270 443,270 443,270 443,270 443,270 443,270 443,270 443,270
LANDFILL (tpa) 79,789 146,279 146,279 88,654 296,991 146,279 79,789 88,654
RECYCLING (tpa) 87,767 87,767 106,385 106,385 87,767 87,767 87,767 106,385
COMPOSTING (tpa) 58,512 58,512 70,923 70,923 58,512 58,512 58,512 70,923
EFW (tpa) 217,202 150,712 119,683 120,033 - - 217,202 -
AD (tpa) - - - 57,275 - - - 177,308
Table 5.9: Summary of results from MBM Scenario 1-8 testing
The results show that the MBM is capable of running a mass balance flow over 8 options and
comparing the results, it should be noted that Table 5.8 does not show the full results from
the MBM, only the relevant information for demonstration of the results. For each of the
scenarios shown in Table 5.8, a mass flow diagram was created; Figure 5.7 shows the
diagram for option 1.
Figure 5.7: Mass Flow diagram for Option 1 (t= tonnes)
110
The interrelation between facilities is shown in Figure 5.7; the total tonnage entering the EfW
can be seen to be 53,758 tonnes from CA waste and 163,445 tonnes from the Transfer
Station. The remaining mass flow diagrams for the other seven options are shown in
Appendix 3.
5.9. Stage 5: The MBM results sheet and graphical outputs
The construction of the components and testing of the MBM been demonstrated in stages 1-4,
it is important to show how the model will use the inputs to generate a set of results that are
able influence the local authority decision makers. To do this, stage 5 will show the results of
entering the parameters used in the scenario RS1 into the MBM. The MBM results for RS1
are shown in Tables 5.10, 5.11 and 5.12:
111
Total Municipal
Waste
Third party
waste
Validation
Check
Financial
Year
Contract
Year
Are the
Recycling
targets met?
Are the
Recovery
targets
met?
Total Municipal Waste
arisisng per year
(including Third Party
Waste)
Total Household Waste
per year (including Third
Party Waste)
Total Municipal waste
other than Household
Waste (including
Third Party Waste) Total Municipal Waste Total Contract Waste
Contract Household
Waste
Contract Waste
other than
Household Waste Third party waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
2002/3 1 YES YES 393,271.0 376,112.0 17,159.0 393,271.0 299,157.0 281,998.0 17,159.0 94,114.0 OK
2003/4 2 YES YES 401,136.4 383,634.2 17,502.2 401,136.4 306,640.4 289,138.2 17,502.2 94,496.0 OK
2004/5 3 YES YES 409,159.1 391,306.9 17,852.2 409,159.1 314,273.1 296,420.9 17,852.2 94,886.0 OK
2005/6 4 YES NO 417,342.3 399,133.1 18,209.3 417,342.3 322,058.3 303,849.1 18,209.3 95,284.0 OK
2006/7 5 YES NO 425,689.2 407,115.7 18,573.5 425,689.2 329,999.2 311,425.7 18,573.5 95,690.0 OK
2007/8 6 YES NO 429,946.1 411,186.9 18,759.2 429,946.1 390,299.1 371,539.9 18,759.2 39,647.0 OK
2008/9 7 YES YES 434,245.5 415,298.8 18,946.8 434,245.5 413,140.5 394,193.8 18,946.8 21,105.0 OK
2009/10 8 YES YES 438,588.0 419,451.7 19,136.2 438,588.0 417,271.0 398,134.7 19,136.2 21,317.0 OK
2010/11 9 YES YES 442,973.9 423,646.3 19,327.6 442,973.9 421,443.9 402,116.3 19,327.6 21,530.0 OK
2011/12 10 YES YES 447,403.6 427,882.7 19,520.9 447,403.6 425,658.6 406,137.7 19,520.9 21,745.0 OK
2012/13 11 YES YES 449,640.6 430,022.1 19,618.5 449,640.6 427,786.6 408,168.1 19,618.5 21,854.0 OK
2013/14 12 YES YES 451,888.8 432,172.2 19,716.6 451,888.8 429,925.8 410,209.2 19,716.6 21,963.0 OK
2014/15 13 YES YES 454,148.3 434,333.1 19,815.2 454,148.3 432,075.3 412,260.1 19,815.2 22,073.0 OK
2015/16 14 YES YES 456,419.0 436,504.8 19,914.2 456,419.0 434,236.0 414,321.8 19,914.2 22,183.0 OK
2016/17 15 YES YES 458,701.1 438,687.3 20,013.8 458,701.1 436,407.1 416,393.3 20,013.8 22,294.0 OK
2017/18 16 YES YES 460,994.6 440,880.7 20,113.9 460,994.6 438,588.6 418,474.7 20,113.9 22,406.0 OK
2018/19 17 YES YES 463,299.6 443,085.1 20,214.5 463,299.6 440,781.6 420,567.1 20,214.5 22,518.0 OK
2019/20 18 YES YES 465,616.1 445,300.6 20,315.5 465,616.1 442,986.1 422,670.6 20,315.5 22,630.0 OK
2020/21 19 YES YES 467,944.2 447,527.1 20,417.1 467,944.2 445,201.2 424,784.1 20,417.1 22,743.0 OK
2021/22 20 YES YES 470,283.9 449,764.7 20,519.2 470,283.9 447,426.9 426,907.7 20,519.2 22,857.0 OK
2022/23 21 YES YES 472,635.3 452,013.5 20,621.8 472,635.3 449,664.3 429,042.5 20,621.8 22,971.0 OK
2023/24 22 YES YES 474,998.5 454,273.6 20,724.9 474,998.5 451,912.5 431,187.6 20,724.9 23,086.0 OK
2024/25 23 YES YES 477,373.5 456,545.0 20,828.5 477,373.5 454,171.5 433,343.0 20,828.5 23,202.0 OK
2025/26 24 YES YES 479,760.3 458,827.7 20,932.7 479,760.3 456,442.3 435,509.7 20,932.7 23,318.0 OK
2026/27 25 YES YES 482,159.1 461,121.8 21,037.3 482,159.1 458,725.1 437,687.8 21,037.3 23,434.0 OK
Totals 11,225,618 10,735,828 489,790 11,225,618 10,286,272 9,796,482 489,790 939,346
Does the Solution meet
the Targets?Waste Arising Contract waste
Answer
Total Waste
Type of Year
Year Categories of waste to be used in conjunction with the Contract
Table 5.10: The MBM Result sheet for the RS1 scenario (part 1)
112
Total Recycling of
Municipal Waste
Third Party Waste
(inc Recycling)
Total Recovery of
Municipal Waste
Third party
Household Waste Total
Contract Waste put to
Beneficial Use
Contract Waste
other than
Household Waste
put to Beneficial
Use
Validation
Check
Total Municipal Waste
Total contract waste
RecycledContract Household
Waste Recycled
Contract Waste
other than
Household Waste
Recycled
Third Party Waste
(inc Recycling) Total Municipal Waste Contract Household
Waste Recovery
Contract Waste
other than
Household Waste
Recovered
Third party waste
recovered Total
Total Municipal
Waste
Total Municipal
Waste Active waste Inacative waste
Is each
tonne of
MW
catered
for?
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23a 23 24 25 26 27 28
39,158.480 20,044.480 19,757.691 286.789 19,114.000 39,158.480 19,757.691 286.789 45,364.000 - - - 305,362.520 305,362.520 - YES
79,237.759 59,741.759 56,944.975 2,796.783 19,496.000 79,237.759 56,944.975 2,796.783 45,746.000 - - - 273,148.661 273,148.661 - YES
79,842.594 59,956.594 57,173.159 2,783.435 19,886.000 79,842.594 57,173.159 2,783.435 46,136.000 - - - 280,566.555 280,566.555 - YES
114,059.726 93,775.726 89,105.499 4,670.227 20,284.000 144,059.726 117,409.290 6,366.435 46,534.000 - - - 224,532.606 224,532.606 - YES
114,689.240 93,999.240 89,350.237 4,649.003 20,690.000 144,689.240 117,661.737 6,337.503 46,940.000 - - - 232,249.938 232,249.938 - YES
115,010.233 94,113.233 90,143.177 3,970.055 20,897.000 145,010.233 118,701.269 5,411.964 27,459.500 - - - 272,748.337 272,748.337 - YES
152,356.871 131,251.871 125,670.664 5,581.208 21,105.000 285,856.871 253,048.303 11,703.568 21,105.000 21,000.000 20,036.932 963.068 127,388.659 106,388.659 21,000.000 YES
152,664.390 131,347.390 125,766.170 5,581.220 21,317.000 286,164.390 253,143.796 11,703.594 21,317.000 21,000.000 20,036.930 963.070 131,423.596 110,423.596 21,000.000 YES
152,973.864 131,443.864 125,862.646 5,581.218 21,530.000 286,473.864 253,240.274 11,703.590 21,530.000 21,000.000 20,036.930 963.070 135,500.002 114,500.002 21,000.000 YES
155,853.599 134,108.599 128,527.385 5,581.214 21,745.000 289,353.599 255,905.017 11,703.581 21,745.000 21,000.000 20,036.931 963.069 137,050.005 116,050.005 21,000.000 YES
156,024.642 134,170.642 128,589.424 5,581.218 21,854.000 289,524.642 255,967.053 11,703.589 21,854.000 21,000.000 20,036.930 963.070 139,115.980 118,115.980 21,000.000 YES
156,195.995 134,232.995 128,651.781 5,581.214 21,963.000 289,695.995 256,029.413 11,703.582 21,963.000 21,000.000 20,036.931 963.069 141,192.830 120,192.830 21,000.000 YES
156,368.660 134,295.660 128,714.443 5,581.217 22,073.000 289,868.660 256,092.073 11,703.587 22,073.000 21,000.000 20,036.931 963.069 143,279.610 122,279.610 21,000.000 YES
159,160.667 136,977.667 131,396.455 5,581.212 22,183.000 313,360.667 278,524.780 12,652.887 22,183.000 25,200.000 24,044.318 1,155.682 117,858.344 92,658.344 25,200.000 YES
159,348.055 137,054.055 131,472.842 5,581.213 22,294.000 313,548.055 278,601.165 12,652.890 22,294.000 25,200.000 24,044.317 1,155.683 119,953.051 94,753.051 25,200.000 YES
159,536.826 137,130.826 131,549.606 5,581.220 22,406.000 313,736.826 278,677.920 12,652.905 22,406.000 25,200.000 24,044.316 1,155.684 122,057.786 96,857.786 25,200.000 YES
159,725.980 137,207.980 131,626.760 5,581.219 22,518.000 313,925.980 278,755.075 12,652.904 22,518.000 25,200.000 24,044.316 1,155.684 124,173.605 98,973.605 25,200.000 YES
159,915.520 137,285.520 131,704.308 5,581.212 22,630.000 314,115.520 278,832.632 12,652.887 22,630.000 25,200.000 24,044.318 1,155.682 126,300.563 101,100.563 25,200.000 YES
160,106.447 137,363.447 131,782.237 5,581.210 22,743.000 314,306.447 278,910.564 12,652.883 22,743.000 25,200.000 24,044.318 1,155.682 128,437.716 103,237.716 25,200.000 YES
160,298.764 137,441.764 131,860.551 5,581.214 22,857.000 314,498.764 278,988.873 12,652.891 22,857.000 25,200.000 24,044.317 1,155.683 130,585.119 105,385.119 25,200.000 YES
160,491.473 137,520.473 131,939.263 5,581.210 22,971.000 314,691.473 279,067.590 12,652.883 22,971.000 25,200.000 24,044.318 1,155.682 132,743.830 107,543.830 25,200.000 YES
160,685.576 137,599.576 132,018.364 5,581.212 23,086.000 314,885.576 279,146.688 12,652.887 23,086.000 25,200.000 24,044.318 1,155.682 134,912.904 109,712.904 25,200.000 YES
160,881.073 137,679.073 132,097.855 5,581.219 23,202.000 315,081.073 279,226.170 12,652.903 23,202.000 25,200.000 24,044.316 1,155.684 137,092.399 111,892.399 25,200.000 YES
161,076.969 137,758.969 132,177.750 5,581.219 23,318.000 315,276.969 279,306.066 12,652.903 23,318.000 25,200.000 24,044.316 1,155.684 139,283.371 114,083.371 25,200.000 YES
161,273.264 137,839.264 132,258.052 5,581.212 23,434.000 315,473.264 279,386.377 12,652.887 23,434.000 25,200.000 24,044.318 1,155.682 141,485.877 116,285.877 25,200.000 YES
3,546,936.665 3,001,340.665 2,876,141.291 125,199.375 545,596.000 6,421,836.665 5,618,497.953 257,742.713 683,408.500 449,400.000 428,790.321 20,609.679 4,098,443.863 3,649,043.863 449,400.000
LandfillRecycling Recovery Beneficial Use
Contract waste Contract waste Total amount of Municipal Waste going to Landfill
Table 5.11: The MBM Result sheet for the RS1 scenario (part 2)
113
Total Capacity of all
facilities including Bring
Banks
Total tonnage not
treated by any of the
facilities
Number of tonnes of
Household Waste
Recycled
Percentage of
the Total
Household
Waste
Recycled
Contract
targets for
Recycling
Total
Household
Waste
Total
Household
Waste
Number of tonnes
of Municipal Waste
Recovered
Perecntage
of the total
Municipal
Waste
Recovered
Contract
targets for
Recycling
Total Municipal
Waste
Total Municipal
Waste
(tonnes) (Percentage) (Percentage) (tonnes) (Percentage) (tonnes) (Percentage) (Percentage) (tonnes) (tonnes)
29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
39,158.480 10.4% - 0.0% 39,158.480 10.0% 95,044.480 298,226.520
79,237.759 20.7% 20% - 0.0% 79,237.759 19.8% 140,741.759 260,394.661
79,842.594 20.4% 20% - 0.0% 79,842.594 19.5% 140,956.594 268,202.555
114,059.726 28.6% 25% 30,000 7.2% 144,059.726 34.5% 40% 237,175.726 180,166.606
114,689.240 28.2% 25% 30,000 7.0% 144,689.240 34.0% 40% 237,399.240 188,289.938
115,010.233 28.0% 25% 30,000 7.0% 145,010.233 33.7% 40% 181,263.233 248,682.837
152,356.871 36.7% 30% 133,500 30.7% 285,856.871 65.8% 45% 356,551.871 92,993.659
152,664.390 36.4% 30% 133,500 30.4% 286,164.390 65.2% 45% 356,647.390 97,240.596
152,973.864 36.1% 30% 133,500 30.1% 286,473.864 64.7% 45% 356,743.864 101,530.002
155,853.599 36.4% 30% 133,500 29.8% 289,353.599 64.7% 45% 359,408.599 103,295.005
156,024.642 36.3% 30% 133,500 29.7% 289,524.642 64.4% 45% 359,470.642 105,469.980
156,195.995 36.1% 30% 133,500 29.5% 289,695.995 64.1% 45% 359,532.995 107,655.830
156,368.660 36.0% 30% 133,500 29.4% 289,868.660 63.8% 45% 359,595.660 109,852.610
159,160.667 36.5% 33% 154,200 33.8% 313,360.667 71.8% 67% 392,277.667 79,441.344
159,348.055 36.3% 33% 154,200 33.6% 313,548.055 71.5% 67% 392,354.055 81,647.051
159,536.826 36.2% 33% 154,200 33.4% 313,736.826 71.2% 67% 392,430.826 83,863.786
159,725.980 36.0% 33% 154,200 33.3% 313,925.980 70.9% 67% 392,507.980 86,091.605
159,915.520 35.9% 33% 154,200 33.1% 314,115.520 70.5% 67% 392,585.520 88,330.563
160,106.447 35.8% 33% 154,200 33.0% 314,306.447 70.2% 67% 392,663.447 90,580.716
160,298.764 35.6% 33% 154,200 32.8% 314,498.764 69.9% 67% 392,741.764 92,842.119
160,491.473 35.5% 33% 154,200 32.6% 314,691.473 69.6% 67% 392,820.473 95,114.830
160,685.576 35.4% 33% 154,200 32.5% 314,885.576 69.3% 67% 392,899.576 97,398.904
160,881.073 35.2% 33% 154,200 32.3% 315,081.073 69.0% 67% 392,979.073 99,694.399
161,076.969 35.1% 33% 154,200 32.1% 315,276.969 68.7% 67% 393,058.969 102,001.371
161,273.264 35.0% 33% 154,200 32.0% 315,473.264 68.4% 67% 393,139.264 104,319.877
3,546,936.665 2,874,900 6,421,836.665 8,252,990.665 3,263,327.363
Meeting the Targets in the ContractCapacitiesRecycling
Household Waste, Recycling Total RecoveryEnergy Recovery (EFW)
Energy Recovery Recovery
Table 5.12: The MBM Result sheet for the RS1 scenario (part 3)
114
5.9.1. Discussion of the results from Scenario RS1
The results presented in the preceding tables demonstrate the significant level of detail
produced by the MBM to plot the mass flow through a given scenario. The three tables would
be seen as one worksheet in MS EXCEL and are divided into two sections, tonnes per
recycling, recovery and landfill, with total MSW arising and a quick check column to see if
the targets have been met. The second section is for determining what the targets are and
what the actual performance is, the latter section shown in Table 5.12.
Table 5.10 shows the first stage of the MBM results, indicating whether the targets set by the
user have been achieved by the configuration of facilities inputted by the user. In the case of
RS1, the recycling targets are met in every year, but three of the recovery targets are missed.
The latter is due to the delay in the energy from waste facility being built, the implications of
this delay will be explored in chapter six. Table 5.10 also shows that RS1 MSW to be
managed each rose by nearly 83,000 tonnes per annum from 393,271 tonnes in 2002/3 to
482,159 tonnes in 2027/28; this is an average increase per annum of 0.07%. As stated in
section 5.7.1, a validation check was built into the MBM; this can be seen in both Table 5.10
and 5.11, the cell answer changes depending on the validation required. In Table 5.10, the
question is ―is every tonne of waste accounted for?‖ in every row the answer is yes, meaning
the check is doing its job.
Due to the many columns and rows in the results sections, it is difficult to determine easily
what the MBM has shown; therefore the MBM also produces two graphs that depict the
tabular results, these can be seen in Figures 5.8 and 5.9. The first Figure shows the results of
Table 5.11 by depicting the recycling and recovery rates achieved by the solution entered into
the MBM, in this case RS1. It can be seen that for both recycling and recovery, the RS1
solution meets and exceeds the contract targets set.
Figure 5.8 shows the sum of all modelled waste through the cumulative total of the facilities
proposed, for RS1, it can be seen that by 2008/9 over 350,000 tonnes per annum of MSW
would be treated through the facilities, in 2014/15, this would rise to 392,277 tonnes per
annum, with the introduction of the Anaerobic Digestion facility.
115
Figure 5.8: MBM Results for RS1: Total recycling and recovery rate per annum
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
20
02
/3
20
03
/4
20
04
/5
20
05
/6
20
06
/7
20
07
/8
20
08
/9
20
09
/10
20
10
/11
20
11
/12
20
12
/13
20
13
/14
20
14
/15
20
15
/16
20
16
/17
20
17
/18
20
18
/19
20
19
/20
20
20
/21
20
21
/22
20
22
/23
20
23
/24
20
24
/25
20
25
/26
20
26
/27
per
cen
tage
of
toat
l was
te a
rsiin
g p
er a
nn
um
Percentage of the Total Household Waste Recycled
Contract targets for Recycling
Percentage of the total Municipal Waste Recovered
Contract targets for Recovery
116
Figure 5.9: MBM Results for RS1: The total waste treated annually through all facilities
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
20
02
/3
20
03
/4
20
04
/5
20
05
/6
20
06
/7
20
07
/8
20
08
/9
20
09
/10
20
10
/11
20
11
/12
20
12
/13
20
13
/14
20
14
/15
20
15
/16
20
16
/17
20
17
/18
20
18
/19
20
19
/20
20
20
/21
20
21
/22
20
22
/23
20
23
/24
20
24
/25
20
25
/26
20
26
/27
Ton
nes
per
an
nu
m
Total Capacity of all facilities including Bring Banks
Total tonnage not treated by any of the facilities
The results and the graphs shown by the Tables 5.10 -12 and Figures 5.8 & 5.9 give a
detailed breakdown of all the results from RS1, it is necessary to look at each section of the
results and the flow of materials through each processing type in detail. To do this an
analysis of the proposals by Veolia South Downs (VSD) will be undertaken. The Contract
was signed with a clause that VSD would be responsible for meeting the targets and having
sufficient capacity for between 300,000 tpa and 550,000 tpa of MSW arising, the lowest and
highest perceived affordable tonnages. VSD was contracted to build a mixture of facilities as
well as a network of transfer stations and local recycling facilities as shown in Table 5.13,
the operational dates and capacities are all subject to planning being granted.
Facility Location Capacity TPA Operational dates
Materials Recycling Facility
(MRF) Hollingdean, Brighton 100,000 Sep-05
Waste Transfer Stn. West Hollingdean, Brighton 100,000 Sep-05
Composting Plant Golden Cross, Hailsham 45,000 Apr-06
Waste Transfer Stn. North Maresfield Camp, Uckfield 40,000 Apr-06
Energy from Waste North Quay, Newhaven 225,000 Oct-09
Waste Transfer Stn. East Pebsham 75,000 Apr-12
(Anaerobic Digestion) Pebsham 75-150,000 Apr-12
New HWRS Crowbrough, Uckfield and
Pebsham N/A
Between Feb 04 and June
2012
Table 5.13: The facilities procured through the PFI contract and using RS1
The performance and efficiency levels of these facilities have been designed to enable the
contractor to achieve the recycling and recovery targets set out in the contract. With regard to
the recovery target, the fixed size of the plant would mean a greater proportion of total waste
would be recovered early on in the contract period and thus the recovery rate would reduce as
waste increases.
5.9.1.1. Recycling
By building a MRF capable of processing up to 100,000 tpa of commingled dry recyclable
materials, sufficient capacity has been secured to enable a large proportion of the waste
stream to be separated and bulked up for transport to end markets. Once the recyclable
materials that have been collected at the three waste transfer stations (located in the West,
East and North of the Councils‘ area) have been bulked up and transferred to end markets or
118
composted, are combined with the recyclable materials separated and bulked up at the MRF,
a recycling rate in excess of the 33% target should be achieved by 2015/16.
5.9.1.2. Recovery
VSD propose to build an Energy from Waste plant (EfW) with a capacity of 225,000 tpa.
This will divert 145,000 tpa from landfill by a process of energy recovery generating 17 MW
of electricity for export to the grid. VSD also propose to put to beneficial use (for re-use as
aggregate) 60,000 tpa of bash ash. In total the EfW will divert from landfill approximately
205,000 tonnes of waste per annum.
5.9.1.3. Description of operational characteristics of EfW
The EfW will comprise a single stream design for 28 tonnes per hour (tph) or 225,000 tonnes
per annum (tpa), generating 20MW of electricity (17 MW of which will be exported). The
plant will operate 24 hours per day; 7 days a week, all year round except for planned periods
of closure for maintenance purposes. The design will aim to enable generation of the
maximum amount of electricity under the full load operating conditions. The combination of
the recovery achieved at the EfW and recycling will mean that over 60% of the waste stream
will be diverted by 2010/11, this is shown by Figure 5.10, which indicates how the contractor
will perform in relation to the targets set by the councils.
Figure 5.10: RS1 Recovery targets for VSD solution
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2002/3
20
03/4
2004/5
2005/6
2006/7
2007/8
2008/9
20
09/1
0
20
10/1
1
20
11/1
2
20
12/1
3
20
13/1
4
20
14/1
5
20
15/1
6
20
16/1
7
20
17/1
8
20
18/1
9
20
19/2
0
20
20/2
1
20
21/2
2
20
22/2
3
20
23/2
4
20
24/2
5
20
25/2
6
20
26/2
7
Rec
over
y r
ate
contract year
Contract targets
Onyx Aurora targets
119
Analysis of Figure 5.10 shows that, during the years between 2010/11 and 2015/16,
depending on the date of commissioning of the EfW, the recovery rate could be between 20%
and 23% above the minimum rates stated in the contract.
This will enable the Councils to achieve maximum diversion of waste from landfill at an
early stage of the contract and reduce to a minimum the requirement to export waste to
landfill outside the Councils‘ area.
5.9.2. Landfill
The VSD solution results in MSW, treated or untreated, ultimately ending up in landfill,
using the principles in section 5.5, the landfill void required each year was calculated in RS1
and then aggregated to give the total landfill void required in the contract period,
demonstrated in Table 5.11, which shows in detail the number of tonnes required to be
deposited in landfill each year. This range is from 385,302 tonnes in 2008/9 to 141,485
tonnes in 2026/27. The total cumulative landfill void required over the contract period would
be just under 4.1million m3, this can be used to determine the lifetime of existing landfill
void. This 4.1 million m3 was plotted against the estimated ESCC and BHC total landfill void
available. Figure 5.11 shows that landfill void is exhausted in mid 2010/11.
Figure 5.11: Landfill void space required for RS1
-3
-2
-1
-
1
2
3
Bas
e yea
r
20
02
/3
20
03
/4
20
04
/5
20
05
/6
20
06
/7
20
07
/8
20
08
/9
20
09
/10
20
10
/11
20
11
/12
20
12
/13
20
13
/14
20
14
/15
20
15
/16
20
16
/17
20
17
/18
20
18
/19
20
19
/20
20
20
/21
20
21
/22
20
22
/23
20
23
/24
20
24
/25
20
25
/26
La
nd
fill
m3
(mil
lio
ns)
SURPLUS/SHORTFALL …
120
The lack of landfill void space after 2011 is the responsibility of VSD and they will have to
provide a solution to the problem, the assumption has been made that local landfill outside of
the councils area will be used.
5.10. Summary
The process, assumptions and key equations used in the building of that model have been
explored. The construction and testing of the model and it uses for comparison against targets
was investigated and its ultimate usage in a real situation was shown. It has been shown that
the MBM was used for ―real‖ through RS1 and that the outputs from the model were
significant factors in the agreement to a solution that enabled the councils of East Sussex and
Brighton & Hove to alleviate the pressure of national targets and real capacity issues.
The next chapter will look at how the MBM needed to be modified and developed to take
account of pieces of legislation which were uncertain at the time of signing the PFI Contract;
the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS). It will also consider the implications this
will have on a national and local perspective.
121
6. THE DEVELOPMENT, TESTING AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF THE
LATS MASS BALANCE MODEL (LMBM).
Chapter four reviewed the waste management life cycle tools and models available to local
authorities prior to 2004; it demonstrated that there wasn‘t a model that met all the needs of
local authority officers. Chapter five continued by describing the process of building a new
Mass Balance Model (MBM) and its subsequent testing with five scenarios for. This included
presenting the complex and diverse factors and calculations used to construct the MBM. The
chapter concluded by demonstrating the use of the MBM to determine the solution for a 25
year waste disposal contract, contracted by the ESCC and BHC to Veolia South Downs,
worth £1billion.
This chapter describes how new legislation; the Landfill Allowances Trading Scheme
(LATS), impacts on the MBM. The subsequent further development required to produce a
new model is explained and a new model, the LATS Mass Balance Model – LMBM is
presented. There is a description of new concepts to be incorporated into the model, the
process testing of the model, and a presentation and analysis of the results from three
scenarios; showing the financial impacts as a result of the new legislation over a 15 year
period. This chapter will only focus on the impact of LATS on East Sussex County Council,
as unlike the recycling and recovery targets, which can be shared, the LATS responsibilities
are for an individual WDA.
6.1. New Legislation
Chapter 2 described the legislation that pressured local government in England to move from
landfill to a technical solution for disposing of waste. Included in that chapter was the EU
Landfill Directive (99/31/EC) that had been published in 1999 and subsequently transposed
into UK law as The Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 (DETR). The objective
of the Directive was "to prevent or reduce as far as possible negative effects on the
environment, in particular the pollution of surface water, groundwater, soil and air, and on the
global environment, including the greenhouse effect, as well as any resulting risk to human
health, from the landfilling of waste, during the whole life-cycle of the landfill" (EU Landfill
Directive (99/31/EC)).
122
In England, between 2003 and 2005, DEFRA introduced legislation designed to transpose
responsibility to individual waste disposal authorities for meeting the Landfill Directive
targets. The primary legislation was The Waste and Emissions Trading (WET) Act 2003, this
was followed by two secondary pieces of legislation; The Landfill Allowances and Trading
Scheme (England) Regulations 2004 and The Landfill Allowances and Trading Scheme
(England)(Amendment) Regulations 2005. An explanation of the WET act and secondary
legislation follows:
6.1.1. The Waste and Emissions Trading (WET) Act
When the WET Act received Royal Assent on 13 November 2003, it provided the framework
for the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS), designed to implement Article 5(2) of
the Landfill Directive and to apportion the UK landfill targets to each country of the UK.
However, it didn‘t apportion individual targets to authorities in England, but it did provide for
a Trading Scheme to be put in place in order to enable the targets to be met in the most cost-
effective way. This was set out in The Landfill Allowances and Trading Scheme (England)
Regulations 2004 and finalised in the Landfill Allowances and Trading Scheme (England)
(Amendment) Regulations 2005.
The WET act has two significant differences to the original EU Landfill Directive for the
UK; it defines the base year as 2000/01 rather than the 1995 Eurostat data. This is because
changes in local authority structure and not enough accurate data meant that there was not a
consistent dataset pre 2000. The target years are also different as the government took the
opportunity to use the derogation on the targets allowed under the EU Landfill Directive.
This allowed the UK to move the date for meeting the targets back by four years as the UK
sent more than 80% of its MSW to landfill in 1995/6 (DEFRA 2005).
Table 2.6 shows the challenging targets for the UK to reduce the amount of biodegradable
municipal solid waste sent to landfill. The targets are expressed as percentages, but, this is
misleading, because in waste management nearly all statistics are calculated in tonnes per
annum (tpa). To reflect this, the DETR set the targets for the amount of Biodegradable
Municipal Waste (BMW) allowed to be landfilled in The Landfill (England and Wales)
Regulations 2002 as definitive numbers. The UK targets were subdivided between the four
123
countries, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, this chapter will only refer to the
English targets.
In the base year of 2001/02, 23.7million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of MSW were generated
by households (DEFRA 2003); the maximum amount of BMW allowed to be taken to landfill
by English WDAs in target years is shown in Table 6.1:
EU Target Year Maximum BMW to landfill (tpa)
2009/10 11,200,000
2012/13 7,460,000
2019/20 5,220,000
Table 6.1: The English Landfill Directive targets (DEFRA 2003)
The targets have been as static numbers, this means that the impact of waste growth is not a
consideration. The impact of the targets on MSW management is shown in Figure 6.1, which
shows the results of a waste growth scenario with a 3% per annum increase in waste, based
on government Figures (DETR 2000). The figure illustrates that the amount of BMW that
needs to be diverted from landfill to hit the targets is increasing.
Figure 6.1: BMW needed to be diverted to meet LATS targets in England at 2% per annum
waste growth
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
20
01
/2
20
05
/6
20
06
/7
20
07
/8
20
08
/9
20
09
/10
20
10
/11
20
11
/12
20
12
/13
20
13
/14
20
14
/15
20
15
/16
20
16
/17
20
17
/18
20
18
/19
20
19
/20
Mtp
a
Finacial year
LATS allowances
BMW arising 3% growth
BMW to be diverted
124
Interpretation of the Figure 6.1 shows that for 2009/10 there is a requirement to divert
6.93Mtpa from landfill to hit the target, and by 2019/20, this has risen to 19.8 mtpa. As a
country England therefore needs to have sufficient infrastructure to treat nearly 20mtpa of
MSW per annum by 2019/10.
Figure 6.2 shows the same information, but using uses a lower waste growth factor of 2% per
annum; the Figure shows the amount of BMW to be diverted for the 3% and 2% waste
growth scenarios.
Figure 6.2: A comparison of BMW required to be diverted from landfill to meet LATS
targets for a 2% and 3% waste growth scenario
The decrease in MSW as a result of assuming a 2% growth rate corresponds to a reduction of
BMW needed to be diverted in 2019/20 of 3.3mtpa. This simple analysis shows that a 1%
decrease in waste growth per annum leads to a 17% decrease in required capacity by
2019/2020. The impact of waste growth can therefore not be underestimated, as a making an
incorrect assumption in 2005/6 could lead to a very different requirement in 2019/20.
6.1.2. The Landfill Allowances and Trading Scheme (England) Regulations 2004
The Landfill Allowances and Trading Scheme (England) Regulations 2004 was announced
by the Secretary of State on 21 July 2004 and came into force the following day. They
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
23.0
24.0
25.0
20
01
/2
20
05
/6
20
06
/7
20
07
/8
20
08
/9
20
09
/10
20
10
/11
20
11
/12
20
12
/13
20
13
/14
20
14
/15
20
15
/16
20
16
/17
20
17
/18
20
18
/19
20
19
/20
Mtp
a
Finacial year
BMW arising 3% growth
BMW arising 2% growth
125
provide the detail for the operation of the Landfill Allowances Trading Scheme (LATS) in
England. This includes rules on the banking, borrowing and transfer of allowances;
responsibilities on waste disposal authorities, including allowances per WDA and landfill
operators for the retention and submission of certain information; a system of penalties;
provisions relating to the monitoring of LATS and the maintenance of registers.
6.1.3. Landfill Allowances and Trading Scheme (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2005
The Landfill Allowances and Trading Scheme (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2005
reduced the financial penalty for a waste disposal authority that fails in a scheme year to
comply with its duty not to landfill more BMW than the landfill allowances available to it.
That financial penalty is reduced from £200 per tonne to £150 per tonne.
6.2. The LATS targets
Between the launch of the WET act in 2003 and the publication of the final allowances on 3rd
February 2005, a letter from the Secretary of State indicated that there were no specific
targets for WDAs. In that time period the most appropriate method to allocate LATS
allowances and thus targets to individual authorities was deliberated. The author developed a
sub-model as part of this work to indicate how the targets shown in Table 6.1 could be
allocated to all English WDAs, based on the proportion of MSW they were responsible for in
England. The questionnaire used to gather data in shown Appendix 6. To allow WDAs to
understand the potential targets the results of the model were published nationally as an
official Local Government Association document in late 2004. DEFRA then published its
own official set of targets in 2005 following consultation these had only very minor
differences to those of the author. The DEFRA targets are used in this chapter.
LATS was not just about setting targets for diverting biodegradable municipal waste away
from landfill, it was also novel in that it enabled councils to use two different methods to hit
the targets; trading of allowances and construction of facilities. The aim of the LATS was to
enable local authorities to meet the reductions required by the EC Landfill Directive in the
most cost effective way. A system of transferable allowances was introduced to allow the
greatest amount of waste diversion or reduction to occur in areas where, consistent with a
126
high level of environmental protection, recycling, composting, incineration and waste
minimisation are cheapest and most practicable.
The LATS operates in a number of phases separated by target years. During these phases
permits can be sold, banked or borrowed but deficits and surpluses cannot be carried forward
across target years. A summary of the rules is shown in Table 6.2.
Period Financial Year Can LATS be Banked? Can LATS be Borrowed?
Phase
1
LATS Banking and Borrowing Rules
2005/6 Yes 5%
2006/7 Yes 5%
2007/8 Yes 5%
2008/9 No No
Target Year 2009/10 No No
Phase
1
Phase
2 2010/11 Yes 5%
2011/12 No No
Target Year 2012/13 No No
Phase
2
Phase
3
2013/14 Yes 5%
2014/15 Yes 5%
2015/16 Yes 5%
2016/17 Yes 5%
2017/18 Yes 5%
2018/19 No No
Target Year 2019/20 No No
Phase
3
Table 6.2: The rules for Banking and Borrowing LATS (adapted from DEFRA LATS
Guidance on Trading, Banking and Borrowing)
After accounting for any banking or borrowing, any authority which needs to landfill more
biodegradable waste than they have allowances for, can either buy from another council, or,
if there are no allowances available, pay a fixed fine of £150 per tonne to DEFRA.
The research shown in Appendix 3 highlighted that by 2009/10 England as a whole would be
very close to being in deficit, whilst individual WDAs would be between 120,000 tonnes in
deficit and 1.3million tonnes in surplus. The reason for this range was that the targets were
allocated against 2000/01 MSW Figures, and any change in facilities post that date was not
included. For example, an authority that landfilled 85% of its MSW in 2001/02 and then had
an EfW become operational in 2002/3, meaning MSW to landfill dropped to 50% would have
a huge surplus in allowances.
127
If, as the research suggested, England would be close to being in deficit, it is expected that
the cost of purchasing permits would rise sharply to match higher demand in allowances. To
monitor and ensure that the scheme is transparent, Waste Disposal Authorities are required to
provide the Environment Agency with a quarterly return which separates waste sent to
landfill from waste diverted through recycling and recovery. From this, the Environment
Agency will then calculate the number of tonnes of biodegradable waste sent to landfill and
compare it to the authorities‘ allocation of allowances.
6.3. Introduction of new concepts to the MBM
The uncertainty of LATS at the time of constructing the MBM meant that the detailed targets
for councils for landfill diversion were not included, but the high level EU Landfill Directive
Targets were. The requirement under LATS is to determine whether the council has sufficient
allowances to landfill the waste it manages or whether it has to embark on a trading strategy
to ensure compliance with LATS targets. There are two main concepts that result from the
LATS regulations; to trade LATS or to construct facilities. The next section will explore the
concepts and their incorporation in a new model which is a development of the MBM from
Chapter 5; The LATS Mass Balance Model (LMBM).
6.3.1. Concept 1: To build sufficient facilities to meet the LATS targets
To achieve the targets under LATS, councils have the option to model the impact of waste
growth, waste composition and recycling and recovery performance to estimate the amount
of waste that will be left to manage; ostensibly this is what the MBM does. The MBM then
gives the user the opportunity to model the size of facility required to meet recovery targets.
With the introduction of LATS, councils are faced with having to meet targets of 33%
recycling and 67% recovery by 2015/16 (DEFRA 2000) and then ensure that they have
diverted enough BMW to meet the targets. The legislation was designed to ensure that the
two were interconnected and this will be tested by the LMBM. One factor that will affect the
delivery of these facilities is the planning process since there is evidence that shows that the
major energy from waste facilities have experienced construction delays of 1 – 2 years as a
result of the planning process (I. Blake, 2001). This factor will be explored as part of the
testing and modelling in section 6.6.
128
6.3.2. Concept 2: Trading LATS to meet the targets
The unique concept of LATS is that authorities can utilise the banking, borrowing, buying
and selling capabilities of the regulations to construct a strategy that allows them take account
of their infrastructure programme. There are many variables that contribute to the
development of this strategy and they will be considered separately to the concept of building
facilities. The complexity of the trading principles is not considered in this thesis as that is a
different model and would require lengthy explanation. The remainder of this chapter will
therefore define the LMBM and the concept of meeting the LATS targets by building
infrastructure.
6.4. Adding new concepts to the MBM, constructing and testing the LMBM
The MBM required significant changes not only to ensure that it took into account the new
dimensions of LATS, but also to produce outputs that are directly useable to those who do
not understand the inner complexities of the legislation. The MBM was re-profiled from one
all-encompassing model to one that was separated into distinct segments that allowed users
greater transparency and flexibility. The LATS-MBM (LMBM) contains the following
segments:
o Data Input
o Calculation, and
o Results
In addition to the new segments, the following criteria were introduced as part of the LMBM:
The model allowed for the calculation of the biodegradable content of the waste
stream and subsequent impact of that BMW passing through different facilities
The base year for the model was changed from 1995/6 to 2001/02 and the most
accurate data available at the time was added (2003/4)
The results indicate whether there was a surplus or deficit in the allowances,
measured against BMW landfilled.
The results were presented in a graphical format to display the surplus or deficit of
LATS
129
6.5. Assumptions used with the testing of the LMBM
The key assumptions required to undertake the modelling of the future costs of waste and
LATS are changes in the amount of waste arising, the composition of the waste stream i.e.
the element that is biodegradable, the timing of the completion of waste treatment facilities
and estimates of recycling and recovery.
6.5.1. Waste growth
RS1 used five different waste growth scenarios. The testing of the new LMBM used the
same five scenarios (low, medium/low, base, medium and high), but only two will be
presented in this chapter; base and high. This is because the low, medium/low and medium
/high growth scenarios are comparable to the base scenario. The LMBM will only use East
Sussex County Council as the study area as LATS targets are more applicable to one
authority than a partnership of authorities as discussed in chapter 5.
6.5.2. Composition of the waste stream
The amount of BMW present in the waste is assumed to be 68% (DEFRA 2005), but research
by Network Recycling in the East Sussex WCAs shows that there is a considerable amount of
―untapped‖ BMW in the residual bins, significantly kitchen waste. The results indicate that
58% of the kerbside residual waste stream is made up of LATS countable material. The
results, when combined with the recycling and composting Figures, indicate that 73% of the
material collected by WCAs is considered BMW. This is 5% higher than DEFRA percentage,
but for the council its impact is that the higher figure equates to higher tonnages of BMW and
there more BMW to target for diversion making achievement of the target possibly easier.
For consistency, the LMBM will use a BMW Figure of 68%.
6.5.3. Completion of key facilities
The facilities presented in Table 5.8 have been updated following the signing of the PFI
contract, as some of the operational dates have slipped. The data in Table 6.3 shows the dates
used for the base case LMBM for planning, construction and operation of the key facilities,
as well as the operational capacity for each facility.
130
Facility Final capacity
(tpa)
Planning
application
Constructio
n start Operational
Material Recovery Facility
Hollingdean, Brighton 80,000 Jul-04 May-05
Late Apr-
06
Composting Facility
Whitesmith (Near Uckfield) 45,000 Mar-04 Late Jan-05 Apr-06
Energy Recovery Facility
North Quay, Newhaven 225,000 Jul-04 Oct-06 Sep-09
New Technology Pebsham Up to 150,000 May-08 May-10 Apr-12
Table 6.3: Base case capacity and construction timelines
6.5.4. Recycling and recovery performance
The recycling performance was calculated assuming the current service level, plus any agreed
improvements with the district and borough councils, for which the resources required have
already been identified and included in existing budgets. Without new investment it is
anticipated that WCA recycling will be about 27% in 2005/6, and 29% in 2006/7. The overall
recycling rate for the County without further investment is therefore assumed to be 27% in
2005/6 and approximately 29% thereafter.
6.6. Descriptions of scenarios tested through the LMBM
A series of tests are required to prove that the new LMBM works as predicted and can be
adjusted to introduce the new concepts described in section 6.4. Due to the uncertain nature
of sale and purchase of LATS, it is prudent to assume that if an authority does not have
sufficient allowances in any given year they may have to pay anything up to the price of the
fine; £150 per tonne. Equally, if an authority has surplus allowances and wishes to sell them
it is hard to quantify how much they will be worth, so a prudent income price of £10 per
tonne will be assumed. The scenario testing will assume that trading, through buying banking
or borrowing is not undertaken. These assumptions form the base case and will be referred to
as Scenario 1A and will demonstrate the worst case scenario for buying LATS allowances
against the dates set out in Table 6.3. Scenario 1A will then be rerun with the price and
income parameters being changed to base case with £100 fines and £25 sales (scenario 1B)
and base case with £50 fines and £50 sales (scenario 1C). These scenarios will test the price
sensitivity of LATS, with a view to understanding the implications on the council‘s budget.
131
Having tested that the LMBM works correctly on one scenario with three price and income
parameters, it is necessary to analyse one of the concepts introduced to the model, delay of
the construction of new facilities. Two further scenarios will therefore be run through the
model to understand the impact delay of one major facility on meeting the LATS targets. The
assumptions will be exactly the same as scenario 1, with the only variable being the EfW
completion date, which will be delayed by 1 year and then 2 years, from the base year. The
matrix in Table 6.4 shows the nine scenarios that will be modelled:
Table 6.4: The scenarios tested to demonstrate the impact of LATS price assumption and
facility delay
6.7. Scenario 1
Scenario 1 uses all the assumptions from RS1 to demonstrate the implications of purchasing
or selling LATS allowances to meet the targets set for ESCC as a WDA. The scenario is
designed to indicate how LATS will impact the newly signed PFI contract on the East Sussex
County Council budget. LATS was not part of the budgeted amount when the contract was
signed; therefore the extent of the extra burden to the council needs to be understood.
6.7.1. Scenario 1A: Base Case with £150 fines and £10 sales
The first scenario modelled through LMBM uses all the assumptions described in section 6.5
of this chapter. Figure 6.3 shows the results of the LMBM and indicates whether the council
would have a deficit of surplus of LATS allowances for every year of the scheme. The graph
shows that the council will have a deficit for the first five years of the scheme and a
decreasing surplus over the last nine years of the scheme, with the final year being in deficit.
The jump in 2009/10 is due to the EFW being constructed, tested and finally made
operational, thereby combusting waste over a 9 month period that continues into the financial
year 2010/11.
Sale of
£10
Purchase
of £150
Sale of
£25
Purchase
of £100
Sale of
£50
Purchase
of £50
no delay
1 year delay
2 year delay
Scenario 2A Scenario 2B Scenario 2C
Scenario 3A Scenario 3B Scenario 3C
LATS Value LATS Value LATS Value
Scenario 1A Scenario 1B Scenario 1C
132
Figure 6.3: Summary of Scenario 1 modelling for LATS
The LATS surplus reduces over time because the EFW has a static capacity and therefore,
any positive waste growth over time will mean that more waste will end up in landfill. Table
6.5 shows the surplus or deficit of LATS allowances and the subsequent fines and income the
Council would attract under scenario 1A.
Financial
Year
Surplus deficit of
allowances (tpa)
Cost of allowances per
annum
Cumulative cost of
allowances
2005/6 17,984- 2,697,554-£ 2,697,554-£
2006/7 21,405- 3,210,798-£ 5,908,351-£
2007/8 27,477- 4,121,549-£ 10,029,900-£
2008/9 31,124- 4,668,666-£ 14,698,566-£
2009/10 2,293- 343,946-£ 15,042,512-£
2010/11 36,607 366,070£ 14,676,442-£
2011/12 32,812 328,116£ 14,348,326-£
2012/13 20,632 206,318£ 14,142,008-£
2013/14 16,889 168,888£ 13,973,120-£
2014/15 13,141 131,408£ 13,841,712-£
2015/16 11,562 115,624£ 13,726,088-£
2016/17 7,810 78,103£ 13,647,984-£
2017/18 4,053 40,534£ 13,607,451-£
2018/19 291 2,914£ 13,604,537-£
2019/20 3,476- 521,346-£ 14,125,883-£
Table 6.5: Scenario 1A cost analysis results: fines £150 per tonne and sales at £10 per tonne
The data shows that failure to have sufficient LATS permits in the first five years of the
scheme at a cost of £150 per tonne would mean that ESCC would need to pay a cumulative
-40,000
-30,000
-20,000
-10,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
20
05
/6
20
06
/7
20
07
/8
20
08
/9
20
09
/10
20
10
/11
20
11
/12
20
12
/13
20
13
/14
20
14
/15
20
15
/16
20
16
/17
20
17
/18
20
18
/19
20
19
/20
Ton
nes
per
an
nu
m
Year
133
cost of over £15 million. As the county moves from deficit to surplus an income is generated
which peaks at nearly £370,000 in 2010/11. The surplus continues, but at a declining rate
until 2018/19, and the income generated counters the deficit to a certain level. However, it
still results in a net deficit income of over £14million for the period of the scheme.
6.7.2. Scenario 1B Base case with £100 fines and £25 sales
Scenario 2B uses the same assumptions as scenario 1A, but with the income modelled at £25
per tonne for the sale of LATS and the cost of buying LATS set at £100 per tonne. Table 6.6
shows the results from the LMBM.
Financial
Year
Surplus deficit of
allowances
Cost of allowances per
annum
cumulative cost of
allowances
2005/6 17,984- 1,798,369-£ 1,798,369-£
2006/7 21,405- 2,140,532-£ 3,938,901-£
2007/8 27,477- 2,747,699-£ 6,686,600-£
2008/9 31,124- 3,112,444-£ 9,799,044-£
2009/10 2,293- 229,297-£ 10,028,341-£
2010/11 36,607 915,175£ 9,113,167-£
2011/12 32,812 820,291£ 8,292,876-£
2012/13 20,632 515,795£ 7,777,081-£
2013/14 16,889 422,219£ 7,354,861-£
2014/15 13,141 328,521£ 7,026,340-£
2015/16 11,562 289,059£ 6,737,281-£
2016/17 7,810 195,259£ 6,542,022-£
2017/18 4,053 101,334£ 6,440,689-£
2018/19 291 7,284£ 6,433,404-£
2019/20 3,476- 347,564-£ 6,780,969-£
Table 6.6: Scenario 1B cost analysis results: fines £100 per tonne and sales at £25 per tonne
The pattern of income and payment stays the same as in scenario 1A, but the cumulative
income increases by from just under £1.5million to over £3.5million. The cost of buying
LATS allowances does drop significantly over the lifetime of the scheme compared to
scenario 1A. The cumulative net cost to the council in this scenario is nearly £7 million, 50%
less than the scenario 1A.
134
6.7.3. Scenario 1C Base Case with £50 fines and £50 sales
The third scenario uses the same assumptions as both scenario 1A and 1B, but models the
sale and purchase price of at £50. The result of running the assumptions through the LMBM
is demonstrated in Table 6.7:
Financial
Year
Surplus deficit of
allowances (tpa)
Cost of allowances per
annum
cumulative cost of
allowances
2005/6 17,984- 899,185-£ 899,185-£
2006/7 21,405- 1,070,266-£ 1,969,450-£
2007/8 27,477- 1,373,850-£ 3,343,300-£
2008/9 31,124- 1,556,222-£ 4,899,522-£
2009/10 2,293- 114,649-£ 5,014,171-£
2010/11 36,607 1,830,349£ 3,183,822-£
2011/12 32,812 1,640,582£ 1,543,240-£
2012/13 20,632 1,031,591£ 511,649-£
2013/14 16,889 844,438£ 332,789£
2014/15 13,141 657,042£ 989,831£
2015/16 11,562 578,118£ 1,567,950£
2016/17 7,810 390,517£ 1,958,467£
2017/18 4,053 202,668£ 2,161,135£
2018/19 291 14,568£ 2,175,703£
2019/20 3,476- 173,782-£ 2,001,921£
Table 6.7: Scenario 1C cost analysis results: fines £50 per tonne and sales at £50 per tonne
Scenario 1C has the same pattern of surplus and deficit, but a net cumulative surplus of just
over £2 million would be received by the council in this scenario, a change of £9 million
compared to scenario 1B and £16 million compared to scenario 1A.
The three scenarios show the impact that LATS can have in changes in price per tonne on
purchasing and trading. This is from a cumulative deficit of nearly £15 million in scenario 1A
to an cumulative income of £2 million in 1C. The extremes of individual years are also
demonstrated, income of £1.83 million in scenario 1C and a net payment of £4.67million in
scenario 1A.
135
6.8. Scenario 2
The modelling in scenarios 1A, B and C has shown what will happen if the facilities are
delivered on time according to the base case PFI scenario. Petts states that the ―siting decision
process for new plant is being substantially lengthened as local communities object to
proposals and force more open discussion of the risks and benefits‖ (Petts 1992). Most
construction processes will allow for delay, but a prudent assumption of 1 year delay is
necessary to understand the financial implications of LATS. The concept of delay is not
unheard of therefore scenario 2 will explore the implications of a 1 year construction delay to
the 225,000 tpa EfW facility. As shown by Table 6.4, three scenarios will be looked at in
scenario 2, each exploring the impact of the same price assumptions shown in Scenario 1.
6.8.1. Scenario 2A: one year delay of the EFW with £150 fines and £10 sales
The results of running the parameters set out in Table 6.4, through the LMBM, for scenario
2A are shown in Figure 6.4.
Figure 6.4: Scenario 2A LATS deficit or surplus in ESCC if the EFW is delayed by 1 year
Comparison of the graphs in Figure 6.3 and 6.4 demonstrates that a one year delay will have
the effect of significantly increasing the deficit of allowances in 2009/10 and turning 2010/11
from a surplus to a deficit year. At this stage it would appear prudent to concentrate on the
-50,000
-40,000
-30,000
-20,000
-10,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
20
05
/6
20
06
/7
20
07
/8
20
08
/9
20
09
/10
20
10
/11
20
11
/12
20
12
/13
20
13
/14
20
14
/15
20
15
/16
20
16
/17
20
17
/18
20
18
/19
20
19
/20
Ton
nes
per
an
nu
m
Year
136
years that are affected by the delay; however, to understand the impact on the whole scheme,
modelling has been undertaken on price sensitivity over the 15 year. Modelling of three price
scenarios for a one year delay is undertaken in scenario 2A.
Financial
Year
Surplus/deficit of
allowances
Cost of allowances
per annum
Cumulative cost
of allowances
2005/6 17,984- 2,697,554-£ 2,697,554-£
2006/7 21,405- 3,210,798-£ 5,908,351-£
2007/8 27,477- 4,121,549-£ 10,029,900-£
2008/9 31,124- 4,668,666-£ 14,698,566-£
2009/10 39,372- 5,905,752-£ 20,604,318-£
2010/11 15,351- 2,302,609-£ 22,906,927-£
2011/12 32,812 328,116£ 22,578,810-£
2012/13 20,632 206,318£ 22,372,492-£
2013/14 16,889 168,888£ 22,203,605-£
2014/15 13,141 131,408£ 22,072,196-£
2015/16 11,562 115,624£ 21,956,572-£
2016/17 7,810 78,103£ 21,878,469-£
2017/18 4,053 40,534£ 21,837,935-£
2018/19 291 2,914£ 21,835,022-£
2019/20 3,476- 521,346-£ 22,356,368-£
Table 6.8: Scenario 2A cost analysis results: fines £150 per tonne and sales at £10 per tonne
The results from the LMBM are shown in Table 6.8; the construction delay means that the
first six years of the scheme are in deficit, an increase of one year compared to scenario 1A.
Interpretation of Tables 6.5 and 6.8 shows the impact of a one year delay under scenario 2A
is disproportionate to the delay, under scenario 1A. In Scenario 1A, the average cost for
failure to meet the targets was under £1 million per annum, suggesting that a delay of one
year would move the financial deficit from £14 million to £15 million.
The result of that one year as modelled by the LMBM is that there is a cumulative deficit of
nearly £23million to the councils; this is an increase of nearly £9million from scenario 1.
The reason for this disproportionate increase is found in the detail of the results, there are
only two years affected by the one year delay, 2009/10 and 2010/11. In scenario 1A for the
year 2009/10, there was a minor deficit of 2,293 tonnes, in scenario 2A this changed to a
deficit of 39,372 tonnes. In scenario 1A for 2010/11 there was a surplus of 36,607 tonnes,
compared to a deficit of 15,351 tonnes in scenario 2A, this results in a change from a
cumulative surplus of 34,314 tonnes in scenario 1A to a cumulative deficit of 54,723 tonnes,
a change of 89,037 tonnes. The cost of buying nearly 90,000 allowances at £150 per tonne
indicates why the price is so much higher in Scenario 2A.
137
6.8.2. Scenario 2B: one year delay of the EFW with £100 fines and £25 sales
The impact of the one year delay has been demonstrated to be financially disproportionate
under scenario 2A. Scenario 2B uses a £100 purchase price if there is a deficit in allowances
and a £25 sale price if there is a surplus; Figure 6.9 shows the results from the LMBM.
Financial
Year
Surplus/deficit of
allowances (tpa)
Cost of allowances
per annum
Cumulative cost of
allowances
2005/6 17,984- 1,798,369-£ 1,798,369-£
2006/7 21,405- 2,140,532-£ 3,938,901-£
2007/8 27,477- 2,747,699-£ 6,686,600-£
2008/9 31,124- 3,112,444-£ 9,799,044-£
2009/10 39,372- 3,937,168-£ 13,736,212-£
2010/11 15,351- 1,535,072-£ 15,271,284-£
2011/12 32,812 820,291£ 14,450,994-£
2012/13 20,632 515,795£ 13,935,198-£
2013/14 16,889 422,219£ 13,512,979-£
2014/15 13,141 328,521£ 13,184,458-£
2015/16 11,562 289,059£ 12,895,399-£
2016/17 7,810 195,259£ 12,700,140-£
2017/18 4,053 101,334£ 12,598,806-£
2018/19 291 7,284£ 12,591,522-£
2019/20 3,476- 347,564-£ 12,939,086-£
Table 6.9: Scenario 2B cost analysis results: fines £100 per tonne and sales at £25 per tonne
In this scenario, the price assumptions are more conservative and therefore the impact
reduces, from a cumulative cost of over £22 million in scenario 2A to nearly £13million.
This is still double the impact under scenario 1B and shows that a one year delay can be a
very real financial problem.
6.8.3. Scenario 2c: one year delay of the EFW with £50 fines and £50 sales
The analysis of buying and selling LATS at £50 a tonne through the LMBM gives a
conservative financial position, which is summarised in Table 6.10:
138
Financial
Year
Surplus/deficit of
allowances
Cost of allowances per
annum
Cumulative cost of
allowances
£ 50 £ 50
2005/6 17,984- 899,185-£ 899,185-£
2006/7 21,405- 1,070,266-£ 1,969,450-£
2007/8 27,477- 1,373,850-£ 3,343,300-£
2008/9 31,124- 1,556,222-£ 4,899,522-£
2009/10 39,372- 1,968,584-£ 6,868,106-£
2010/11 15,351- 767,536-£ 7,635,642-£
2011/12 32,812 1,640,582£ 5,995,061-£
2012/13 20,632 1,031,591£ 4,963,470-£
2013/14 16,889 844,438£ 4,119,031-£
2014/15 13,141 657,042£ 3,461,989-£
2015/16 11,562 578,118£ 2,883,871-£
2016/17 7,810 390,517£ 2,493,353-£
2017/18 4,053 202,668£ 2,290,686-£
2018/19 291 14,568£ 2,276,118-£
2019/20 3,476- 173,782-£ 2,449,900-£
Table 6.10: Scenario 2C cost analysis results: fines £50 per tonne and sales at £50 per tonne
In scenarios 2A, 2B and 2C, the council does not show a cumulative income from the sale or
purchase of LATS in any of the 15 years. Although these changes only occur in 2 of the
scheme years, the delay in planning has a knock-on impact for subsequent years. This is
because for those two years the council has a surplus of allowances of 40,038 in scenario 1,
whilst scenario 2 has a net deficit of allowances of 48,998 over the 15 years.
6.9. Scenario 3
It has been indicated that major waste treatment facilities are subject to long delays at the
planning stage (Petts 1992, Qviström 2007), section 6.8 shows that a net deficit in allowances
over a period of time results in a net cost to councils. Therefore scenario 3 will focus on the
cumulative number of allowances over the 15 year trading period, rather than the cost of
buying and selling.
6.9.1. A Planning delay of two years
The surplus/deficit of allowances for the case of a two year planning delay are shown in
Figure 6.5 and show the net allowances against the net BMW to landfill taken from the data
modelled in the LMBM with the 2 year delay. There is a distinct pattern to Figure 5.6, a
continuous deficit of allowances compared to BMW landfilled. There is a small anomaly, a
139
decrease in the deficit post 2010/11 as a result of the delayed EFW becoming operational and
reversing the deficit trend.
Figure 6.5: Comparison of BMW to landfill and LATS allowances if the EFW is delayed by
2 years
The cumulative deficit in 2019/20 for the total period is 136,174 tonnes, compared to +
40,038tonnes in scenario 1 and -48,998 for scenario 2. Figure 6.6 shows the results of the
calculations for scenarios 3A, 3B and 3C. The results demonstrate the impact of changing the
purchase price in any given year. For example, in 2010/11, the cost to the council as a result
of the three scenarios‘ would be between £7.8 million and £2.3 million, a budgeting
difference of £5.5 million. This difference is nearly 30% of the annual cost of the PFI
contract (£18 million per annum) and is not a sustainable amount for prudent financial
management. The extreme of the two year delay is shown by comparing the results of
scenario 3A with scenario 2A; there is again significant increase in deficit, as expected, with
the cumulative financial deficit increasing by over £8 million to £30.8 million.
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400 2
00
5/6
20
06
/7
20
07
/8
20
08
/9
20
09
/10
20
10
/11
20
11
/12
20
12
/13
20
13
/14
20
14
/15
20
15
/16
20
16
/17
20
17
/18
20
18
/19
20
19
/20
ton
nes
per
an
nu
m (
Th
ou
san
ds)
CumulativeLATS allowances
Cumulative BMW to landfill
140
Figure 6.6: Sensitivity analysis results of scenario 3 cost of LATS if the EFW is delayed by 2
years
6.10. Analysis of the three scenarios
The three scenarios have demonstrated that the financial impact on ESCC is immense if a
major facility is delayed. This is demonstrated in Figure 6.7, whereby the impact of delay can
seen over the period 2008/9 – 2012/13.
If there is a surplus of allowances over the fifteen year period, there will be an income for the
council. This ignores the impact of year to year buying and selling and how this affects cash
flow for the Councils, e.g. in scenario 3A the councils would have to spend £7.9million in
2010/11 to have sufficient LATS to meet the target whilst they would receive £1.83million in
2009/10 under scenario 1C.
The annual cost for ESCC of the PFI contract scenario, using the LMBM scenario, is
£15million on average over the first ten years. The scenarios show that the councils would
need to budget for anywhere up to 52% of its annual budget to buy and sell LATS; this is a
risk that has many implications, which could include reducing services in other parts of the
council.
-£9.0
-£8.0
-£7.0
-£6.0
-£5.0
-£4.0
-£3.0
-£2.0
-£1.0
£0.0
£1.0
£2.0
20
05
/6
20
06
/7
20
07
/8
20
08
/9
20
09
/10
20
10
/11
20
11
/12
20
12
/13
20
13
/14
20
14
/15
20
15
/16
20
16
/17
20
17
/18
20
18
/19
20
19
/20
Mil
lion
s
Scenario 3A buying at £150 per tonne
and selling at £10 per tonne
Scenario 3B buying at £100 per tonne
and selling at £25 per tonne
Scenario 3C buying at £50 per tonne and
selling at £50 per tonne
141
Figure 6.7: The fine or income attributable each year as a result of scenario 1A, 2A and 3A
6.11. Conclusion
This chapter demonstrates how new legislation has been incorporated into the MBM - to form
the LMBM. An analysis of the results of three scenarios has been undertaken, focussing on
the budget impact on East Sussex County Council. The results of these scenarios are useful to
the councils in demonstrating the potential impact the LATS targets has on their budget, but
all fail to make use of all of the aspects of the trading potential of LATS. The true result of
these scenarios will not be understood until at least 2015/16, when the second EU target year
is approached, in the interim, ESCC has the opportunity to use the banking and borrowing
system. Whilst this is not described in this thesis, there is much scope for avoiding some of
the huge fines that could be levelled by DEFRA.
-£9
-£8
-£7
-£6
-£5
-£4
-£3
-£2
-£1
£-
£1
20
05
/6
20
06
/7
20
07
/8
20
08
/9
20
09
/10
20
10
/11
20
11
/12
20
12
/13
20
13
/14
20
14
/15
20
15
/16
20
16
/17
20
17
/18
20
18
/19
20
19
/20
Fin
e
(
Mil
lion
s)
Inco
me
Year
Scenario 1A
Scenario 2A
Scenario 3A
142
7. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
The beginning of the 21st century saw a dynamism unseen in municipal solid wastes
management previously, a plethora of targets, new technologies and a changing public
attitude put pressure on the continuation of the ―truck and dump‖ regime that had endured for
the 20th
Century. There was a requirement for a new solution, with local authorities having
the facilitation role. The need for local government to change their own systems meant new
contracts and facilities that could meet the new demands. Intrinsic within the planning for the
future was a requirement to plan the right technology and fundamentally the right size that
would endure over the perceived 25 year life time of new facilities.
The aim of the thesis was to ―enable local authority officers to plan for the future
management of wastes for which they have responsibility‖. It has been demonstrated, that
there was insufficient clear and easy to use prediction tools for the local authority officers to
use that enabled modelling of future requirement; indeed, many passed the obligation to
consultants and future contractors. The Mass Balance Model (MBM) was therefore
developed to be used for this purpose; it drew upon the needs of both the local authority
officer and academics by using a combination of easy to use but complex calculations,
structured to demonstrate the size of facilities and ability to achieve required targets. The
MBM was developed as a quantitative tool for procuring an integrated waste management
contract through the mechanism of a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and was rigorously
tested by the author. Indeed the MBM was considered robust enough to be used by Brighton
& Hove City Council and East Sussex County Council as the predictive model for the
procurement of their joint £1billion twenty five year contract with Veolia South Downs
signed in 2003.
Subsequent legislative changes not in place at time of contract signature required a new
model; the LATS MBM (LMBM) was developed as a second phase, incorporating the new
Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS). Research was undertaken in 2005 through a
national questionnaire to ascertain the impact of LATS and the ability for councils to trade. A
further refinement was made to the LMBM; a trading strategy, to allow councils to enter a
trading market for LATS with sufficient intelligence to ensure financial stability, this was not
described in this thesis, but the results indicated that the councils would not need to budget
for such large fines.
143
7.1. Objectives
In concluding the research and development undertaken to inform this thesis, it is cognisant
to review the objectives of this thesis set out in chapter one and consider the learning
achieved through focussing on said objectives.
7.1.1. Objective 1: Identify the roles and responsibilities of wastes management and impacts
thereof
Responsibility for wastes management in ESCC and BHC has been demonstrated to be split
between local authorities and the private sector. The focus of the research being the wastes
managed by local authorities; Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). Local government waste
management can be categorised by three levels of responsibility; waste collection, waste
disposal and unitary authorities. The former two are arranged as ―two tier‖ government, a
county council (WDA) will have a number of district or boroughs within its area (WCA). In
many cases the tension between authorities is significant in these areas; the collection
authorities want to have their own sovereign solution, whilst the WDA wants to control the
waste as much as it can. The subsequent dialogue can sometimes lead to an ineffective
solution for collection and disposal, meaning a higher cost to the tax payer. The Unitary
council has responsibility for both collection and disposal and can therefore have to synergise
the two services. However, some authorities will be of insufficient size to develop their own
disposal solutions and will need to work with other authorities, thereby creating a possible
tension through partnership working.
During the course of research and authoring, the way MSW is managed has changed. The
cost of managing waste has increased to pay for the new facilities and services; however,
Banks and Venture Capitalists are entering the waste sector (DEFRA 2007), with the
European Investment Bank budgeting to spend €75 billion in 2009/10 compared to €55
billion in 2008/09 on wastes management (EIB 2008). This is a major shift from the 20th
century when investment in facilities was poor (Peacock 1999).
An interpretation of the 2007/8 statistics is shown in Figure 7.1; it indicates that councils in
England managed 29,144,185 tonnes of MSW. The Figure shows the subdivision of waste
and the management practices employed by local authorities in England through collection,
treatment and disposal of MSW.
Figure 7.1 Mass flow of 2007/8 English MSW arisings (tonnes per annum) (Greenfield 2009)
The management by local authorities of nearly 30 million tonnes of waste is shown to be
complicated and can go through many applications. However, Figure 7.1 shows that just over
half of the waste generated in England in 2007/8 went to landfill. This is significantly less
than in 2000/01, when 82% of MSW was sent to landfill.
A seismic shift in the way waste is managed has occurred. By 2009, recycling rates in
England in certain authorities were over 50% and indeed in ESCC were nearing 30%, a
significant change in 9 years. Between the turn of the century and 2009 collection methods
matured and councils introduced a plethora of collection systems that can be characterised in
three main systems; kerbside sort, single stream co-mingled with separation at a Material
Recycling Facility (MRF) and two stream co-mingling (WRAP 2009). An overview of each
of the three predominant methods and their components is shown in Table 7.1.
Interpretation of Table 7.1 shows that the most commonly used type of collection
methodology is kerbside sort (44%) followed by single stream Co-mingled (35%) and two-
stream co-mingled (37%).
Type of
collection
Recycling Container and Refuse
Frequency
Total
Number
% of English
LA’s
Kerbside Sort
Sack and/or box, fortnightly refuse 59 17
Sack and/or box, weekly refuse 95 27
Total Kerbside Sort 154 44
Single stream
Co-mingled
Wheeled Bin, fortnightly refuse 59 17
Wheeled Bin, weekly refuse 24 7
Sack and/or box, fortnightly refuse 7 2
Sack and/or box, weekly refuse 31 9
Total Single Stream Co-mingled 121 35
Two Stream
Co-mingled
Sack and/or box, fortnightly refuse 17 5
Sack and/or box, weekly refuse 20 6
Total Two Stream Co-mingled 37 11
No Recycling
scheme No recycling scheme 32 10
Table 7.1: Analysis of Kerbside collection types by number and percentage of English Local
Authorities (Adapted from WRAP 2009)
146
7.1.2. Objective 2: Explore the drivers for change for local authorities
The immense pressure on local authorities for change has been demonstrated by the plethora
of legislation from Europe and the UK over the last decade; this has been shown to be the
catalyst for change and has led to the exploration of various new technologies for the
management of waste. Public interest and perception of the environment has also been shown
to have increased and the need to recycle has been ever increasing, indeed. Twenty years ago,
the tip was exactly that, nowadays it is somewhere to exploit your green credentials by
recycling and buying from the scrap store. Huge pressure has been applied by the NGOs with
the public now regarding waste as a problematic service. Planning for facilities has become a
full time job, demonstrated by the million plus comments made against the ESCC & B&HCC
Waste Local Plan. Waste has always used acronyms, but the public perception agenda has led
to ―Not In My Back Yard‖ (NIMBY), ―Not In My Term of Office‖ (NIMTO) and ―Build
Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody‖ (BANANA), all are symptomatic of the
approach both the public and politicians sometimes have to waste facilities.
In 2009, a pressure that was identified in section 1.1; the definition of MSW, has been
reinvigorated, with debate between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(DEFRA) and Local Authorities (LAs) (Letsrecycle 2009). DEFRA is reacting to this by
clarifying the definition of MSW by consulting on the definitions in 2010 with a view to
publishing guidance in 2010/1.
The existing definition of MSW can be interpreted differently, for example if a local
authority collects waste from a school; it would be defined as MSW under the LATS
guidance, but would not be MSW under the WET act definition. DEFRA further clarified this
guidance in 2007 by stating that ―Collected municipal solid waste‖ is waste which ―comes
into the possession or under the control of (a) a waste disposal authority, or (b) a waste
collection authority within the area of the disposal authority, whether or not the waste is in
possession or under the control of that authority under or by virtue of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990‖ (DEFRA 2007).
The drivers for change are stated above but exclude a common cause of change; lack of
facilities or landfill void, the latter being the common factor; albeit for the southern
147
authorities of England. To address this latter factor, much emphasis has been placed on
minimising waste; this is demonstrated by national and regional campaigns.
In 2008 the Association of Cities and Regions for Recycling and sustainable Resource
management (ACR+) launched a 100 kg challenge for all European countries. They identified
4 categories of waste that deserved most attention for waste prevention (ACR+); Organic,
Paper, packaging and bulky wastes. The detail of the intervention measures to be
implemented by those authorities signing up to the voluntary agreement is shown by Table
7.2.
From the initiative put forward by ACR+ and many other promotional campaigns including;
the ―Love food Hate waste‖, ―Recycle Now‖ and the ―Home composting‖ campaigns
promoted by the Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP), it is evident that waste
minimisation is being taken far more seriously. However, it is also clear that campaigns may
only reduce waste arising by 16% of the targeted material and 10% of the average 1 tonne of
waste produced by English households annually (DEFRA 2006).
Table 7.2 Table of actions and potential for waste minimisation (ACR +)
Actions for the 4 flowsAmount
(kg/inhab./year)
Potential waste
reduction
(kg/inhab./year)*
1 Organic waste : 220 40
• Promote composting at source(at home, local, in
green spaces…) 180 30
• Fight against food waste 30 8
• Promote reusable nappies 10 2
2 Paper waste : 100 15
• Fight against unwanted flyers or newspapers 20 5
• Encourage dematerialisation (schools and offices) 80 10
3 Packaging : 150 25
• Choose products whose packaging can be returned
to place of purchase 35 12
• Promote tap water 6 2
• Develop reusable bags 2 1
• Fight against over-packaging 107 10
4 Bulky or other waste : 130 20
• Promote reuse of clothes 8 4
• Promote reuse of furniture, EEE, toys, other bulky
waste 110 13
• Fight against excess buying 12 3
Total 600 100
* Sources : Internal working groups 2006– ACR+ 600 100
148
In 2008, the UK was hit by the longest recession since records began, the impact on waste
companies was highlighted by the 2009 Veolia half yearly report that claimed that waste
management divisions had been ―characterised by a decline in the volumes of mainly
industrial and hazardous waste processed‖ and also falls in the prices of recycled materials,
most noticeably paper and metals. Veolia said this had a ―significant impact‖ on the operating
performance of the division (Veolia 2009).The recession has had a different impact on
business, where the challenging economic climate appears to be creating a new mindset,
where sustainability goes hand-in-hand with profitability and where waste equals higher costs
(Envirowise 2009). Whilst many authorities have looked to increase recycling, to minimise
landfill tax costs, increased recycling can of itself have an impact on the cost of the service,
for example, to cope with more recycling streams and hence potential increases in service
costs.
7.1.2.1. The changing composition of MSW
In order to develop a well-integrated and cost-effective system for managing MSW, planners
must evaluate how well each potential piece of the system meshes with other existing or
proposed system components. The fit of a particular component can be measured in terms of
its purpose, size, location, ownership, operation, system of financing, and relationship to
administrative and regulatory agencies. Specifically, individual components of the system
should be: (a) chosen so they do not overlap or compete excessively; (b) sized so they can
handle the portion of the waste stream they were designed for, without competing with other
components; (c) located so that transportation costs between management facilities are
minimized and appropriate transportation networks are used; (d) owned, operated, and
financed to minimize overall public costs, while ensuring responsible management and
cooperation with other system components; and (e) administered by appropriate agencies,
with adequate public oversight (UNEP 1999). The PFI programme undertaken by the two
councils achieved all of these factors; however one factor that is not included by the UNEP is
the impact of MSW composition. Figure 1.6 shows a historical waste analysis of the way
composition of the waste generated by households has changed over the 20th century; it is up
to the planner of a 25 year PFI programme to be able to adapt to the changing composition of
this MSW.
149
It has been predicted that the major change in composition will be due to the production,
consumption and inclusion in waste streams of more and more complex products.
Personalized medicine, new computers and gadgets, networked homes and full home
management systems, fully customized consumer products, personal security and personal
energy products are coming or are already here (Mavropoulos 2008). The impact on the
composition of the MSW collected from the households will change accordingly, waste is
getting more valuable.
The use of nano-materials will impact the composition of waste over the next quarter of a
century; indeed, nano-bio and e-technologies will create a whole spectrum of new artificial
materials. Major breakthroughs within the next two decades will provide inexpensive ways to
produce mass quantities of those materials. In addition, the function of such materials will
move from ‗passive‘ to ‗active‘ with the integration of nanoscale valves, switches, pumps,
motors and other components (Mavropoulos 2008). The impact will be that greater quantities
of these materials will be discarded, will the facilities procured be able to adapt to these
changes. The problem for waste planners is timing; new goods are launched, purchased and
presented as new kinds of waste before a waste management solution has been created. The
catch up time for waste management processing is slow compared to the creation of new
products; it is this point alone that requires producer responsibility. It is imperative that
producers liaise with waste managers to ensure that waste from products can be managed and
waste managers have adequate funding to react to changing composition.
7.1.2.2. The Pre budget reports
The impact of the recession on local authorities has seen government spend cut targets, with
the 2009 pre budget report stating that councils must save £550 million in 2010/11, some of
which must come from waste management activities.
Since the PFI contract was signed, the landfill tax has emerged as the main economic policy
for diverting MSW from landfill, indeed the 2008 report stated that as announced in Budget
2007, from 1 April 2008 and until at least 2010/11, the standard rate of landfill tax will
increase by £8 per tonne each year. Importantly, the report confirmed that the government
expects the standard rate to continue to increase beyond 2010/11. The current financial
150
situation means that waste minimisation is necessary, as even a miniscule reduction in
tonnage collected will reduce costs.
7.1.3. Objective 3: Describe the available technologies for management of wastes
The main technologies feasible for the systematic shift away from reliance on landfill are
described in chapter three. These included proven technologies such as mass burn
incineration, windrow composting and recycling. Innovative technologies were suggested to
have a place due the public perception issues with incineration, these included pyrolysis,
gasification and anaerobic digestion. It was concluded that no single technology could be
employed to deliver significant diversion from landfill with maximum beneficial use of waste
materials; rather a mix of technologies, targeting specific waste items should be used.
Between the PFI contract being signed and 2009, there has been a move towards more
localised and less capital intensive waste management facilities whilst also considering the
carbon burden of MSW management (Mühle et al 2009). In England, there has been a move
towards Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT), as alternative to EfW to appease public
opinion. MBT is a residual waste treatment process that involves both mechanical and
biological treatment processes, it can be configured in many ways and the common
applications are:
The ‗M‘ refers to sorting, separation, size reduction and sieving technologies in
varying configurations to achieve mechanical separation waste fractions into
potentially useful products and /or streams for biological processing.
The ‗B‘ refers to aerobic or anaerobic biological process which converts the BMW
into a compost like output (CLO) and, in the case of AD, biogas.
The T‘ relates to the fact that process elements can integrated to create an MBT
process.
The application of MBT has been designed to compliments other waste management
technologies such as recycling and composting as part of an integrated waste management
system. A process description is shown in Figure 7.2:
151
Figure 7.2: An illustration of the potential Mechanical Biological Treatment options (DEFRA
2007)
The move towards MBT has also been prompted by the need for sustainable energy
generation. The case for using MSW for energy generation is good; the following factors
highlight the demand:
A 10% reduction in fossil fuel demand ~20.5mT oil equivalent
Currently energy from biodegradable municipal waste 0.5mT oil equivalent
Potential 7mT oil equivalent from waste
~2mT oil equivalent from BMW
~3.5mT oil equivalent from C&I bio
+ 1-1.5mT oil equivalent from non bio?
Security of supply (imports currently at 149mT oil equivalent)
Table 7.3: The size of the waste to energy opportunity (Derived from Defra waste data flow
statistics and DUKES aggregate energy balance)
The opportunity to generate energy from 7 million tonnes oil equivalent is identified in Table
7.3; this will come from both EfW and biogas or CLO generated through MBT. The WDAs
152
in England have the following facilities in the pipeline of construction which indicates that
huge investment is being made:
Figure 7.3: The EfW and MBT construction pipeline (IESE 2009)
The 52 plants have a combined 14.2 million tonnes total treatment capacity planned by 2015,
with 4.6 mtpa for MBT solutions and >1.5mT for no technology preference despite MBT
reference.
Given all of the financial and technical pressures, councils in England have coped well with
the conflicting demands of waste minimisation, diversion of waste from landfill, and
increased collection of recyclates. The average cost of the refuse collection service per
household has shown a steady increase from £40.01 in 2002-03 to £69.02 in 2008-09.
However, this investment in the service has shown a corresponding increase in the percentage
of total domestic waste collected which is sent for recycling from 11.15% in 2002-03 to
37.13% in 2008-09 – more than triple that of 6 years ago (DEFRA 2009).
7.1.4. The ESCC & BHC PFI facilities
All of the sites and facilities identified in Table 5.8, have been completed or are in
construction. The last remaining facility to be completed will be the Energy Recovery
Facility which was started at the end of April 2008. The site selected for development is
situated at North Quay, Newhaven, between the River Ouse and the railway line and will
have the capacity to handle 210,000 tonnes of waste a year. The artist‘s impression of the
153
new facility is shown in Figure 7.4, it took three years to obtain planning permission, a
contributing factor to the delay:
Figure 7.4: Artists impression of the new energy recovery facility at Newhaven (Veolia
2009).
7.1.5. Objective 4: Use the drivers and responsibilities to create a mass balance model
(MBM) and describe the process of building the MBM and testing it
Extensive research was undertaken between 1999 and 2002 on the models available for mass
flow prediction, coupled with an in depth survey of a number of senior officers. It was
concluded that there were models available but that all were too specialised for the needs of
the local authority officers. The construction of a new spreadsheet Mass Balance Model
(MBM) was described in chapter four, with the emphasis being placed on usability and
understanding of results. The MBM allowed users to find the optimum mix of technologies
for a defined target, incorporating the ability to manipulate the efficiencies of the
technologies, the waste growth scenario, the targets set and the type of waste managed. The
MBM was used by two councils (East Sussex County Council and Brighton & Hove City
Council) for the procurement of their £1biilion integrated waste management contract in
2003.
154
7.1.6. Objective 5: Describe the impact of new legislation on the results of the MBM and the
requirement for a revised model to take account of new drivers.
New legislation was introduced in 2004 that meant a revision to the MBM was required. The
Landfill Allowances Trading scheme required waste disposal authorities to collectively meet
European targets imposed nationally for the diversion of Biodegradable Municipal waste
(BMW) in 2009/10, 2012/13 and 2019/20. The government solution was to have a 15 year
trading programme allowing councils to decide upon a construction programme or trading
strategy, most went for both. The revised model was called the LATS MBM (LMBM) and
could take allowance of these new regulations. It was demonstrated through a number of
scenarios that the impact on a council of missing targets was huge, with fines of £ 150 per
tonne being applied for failure to have a valid permit for sending BMW to landfill, at the
extreme, the council would have to commit 52% of its annual budget to buy and sell LATS
given the lack of clarity in the market and the impact of delay on progressed facilities. The
LMBM enabled East Sussex County Council to predict the impact of LATS and a trading
strategy was developed that is in use at the moment.
The delay in the major facility, as postulated in chapter 6, did occur, but the identified fines
were not imposed by DEFRA. ESCC adopted a strategy of buying LATS permits from
Hampshire County Council for the first four years of the scheme, whilst borrowing from
future years. The stabilisation of waste growth also meant that exposure to deficit of LATS
was not as great as first modelled. By 2009 LATS was been seen by many as having achieved
its task and there were considerations into its future, especially as the landfill tax escalator
had reached £45 per tonne and was deemed to be a more potent driver.
7.1.7. Objective 6: Explain the improvements and difficulties found whilst undertaking this
thesis
The MBM and LMBM have been built such that they are fit for purpose, in that they can be
used to run permutations of the waste flow and different facilities to enable the user to reach
desired targets. The models do however exclude certain variables that a local authority officer
may require should they wish to undertake an Integrated waste management system of this
scale, namely;
Cost of facilities,
155
Environmental impact,
Land take for facilities, and
Transport infrastructure required
These are all issues that the model cannot at present show, but with development could go a
long way to addressing, either by incorporating within this model or by linking to other
models that already exist. Before any of these improvements can be made there are a number
of other improvements to the current model that can be made to enable a more user friendly
and understandable approach;
7.1.7.1. Improvement no 1: Enabling facilities to be added other than the options given
Both the MBM and LMBM have the option of inputting a set number of facilities, based
upon the development of the model with ESCC and B&HCC. For larger authorities, further
facilities would be required. The adaptation would require redesigning the whole model to
have a user specific drop down menu of facilities to be modelled. Whilst not difficult, the
improvement would be time consuming and would not detract from the outputs for the
councils given in the case study.
7.1.7.2. Improvement no 2: Developing a model comparison system
If a user wants to model numerous scenarios they must manually compare the results from
every version of the model. Whilst time consuming this again does not distract from the out
put of the LMBM. The solution would be to rebuild the model as a set number of scenarios,
with a summary page for all scenarios, again this would be a time consuming piece of work
and would only enhance the usability, rather than the accuracy of the results.
7.1.7.3. Improvement no 3: Develop a waste composition element
At present, all waste is deemed to be 68% biodegradable, and the input to each facility will
use this assumption. The major part of the LMBM development was allowing the model to
calculate what proportion of BMW was remaining after the waste had been through the
facility, this principle could be used at a category level, for example, paper and glass. This
adaption to the model would be complex, but would enable users to get a more accurate
understanding of the proportions of waste available for treatment by different facilities.
156
7.2 Further research opportunities
The construction of the MBM and subsequent LMBM has shown the need for a mass balance
model that enables waste management planners to understand the interrelation of facilities
and waste arising. The models have been found to be requiring improvements, as
demonstrated in Section 7.1.7, however, it is also clear that there are opportunities for further
research. The changes in legislation that have occurred during the development of the MBM
and LMBM have occurred in parallel to the emergence of more knowledgeable public, with a
greater understanding of environmental concerns, it is this topic area that presents some of
the potential future research opportunities.
7.2.1 Research option 1: Climate change and green house gas emissions
Waste management treatment through incineration, composting and landfilling generates
carbon dioxide and methane, as household waste contains readily biodegradable carbon based
organic matter such as kitchen waste, garden waste, and paper, and slowly biodegradable
organic materials such as lignin (Burnley 2007). The most important waste gases produced by
incinerators are carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and oxides of nitrogen (NO and
NO2, together known as NOx) (Steadman 1996). The major problem with carbon dioxide is
through its contribution to the enhancement of Earth's greenhouse effect. The impact of
climate change and the need to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases are increasingly recognised as serious issues for Local Authorities and their supply
chains.
With emerging policies and regulations controlling emissions, rising energy prices and
increasing public and investor interest, no local authority can ignore the strategic and
operational implications of climate change and the new carbon economy. Addressing the
impact of waste management on climate change has implications for the modeling performed
by the MBM and LMBM, as they do not take account of the impact of the management of
facilities and subsequent environmental emissions.
Further research is required to identify whether councils should focus on just meeting the
targets set out in UK environmental legislation, as described in Chapter 4, or focus on
diverting waste from landfill with the least impact of emissions to the environment.
157
7.2.2 Research Option 2: Funding commitments and risk posed by entering into a PFI
contract
By October 2007 the total capital value of PFI contracts signed throughout the UK was £68bn
committing the British taxpayer to future spending of £215bn (Timmins 2009) over the life of
the contracts. The global financial crisis which began in 2007 presents PFI with difficulties
because many sources of private capital have dried up (Monbiot 2009), making it more
difficult to finance such large scale projects as the £1billion East Sussex County Council and
Brighton & Hove City council contract. The PFI was deemed to be ―Best Value‖ at time of
signature as economies of scale were achieved through the councils working together to fund
facilities they may not have been able to on their own.
However, further research is required to understand whether the methods for meeting the
targets as proposed and modelled by the MBM and LMBM are a sustainable financial option
for the future or whether alternative methods are required that focus on much smaller
contracts. The implication may be that smaller facilities may be required that that are easier to
finance.
7.2.3 Research option 3: Waste as a Resource
Legislative drivers in relation to household waste collection are currently focused on ensuring
at least two recyclables are collected separately from the household by 2010; the type and
range of recyclables targeted and manner in which they are collected and pre-processed
varies significantly. Choices being made are not necessarily market based decisions, or
necessarily borne from consideration of the carbon content or resource potential of the waste
material; rather the decisions are based on the most cost effective collection system to deliver
the greatest tonnage of recyclate to ensure that tonnage based performance targets are met.
Operating a weight based approach such as this does favour collection of the heavier
materials, rather than making decisions based on the value of the material for reprocessing
and its value in terms of potential use. From a resource conservation point of view this does
not necessarily make sense, with lightweighting or ‗rightweighting‘ of products and
packaging playing a big part in the manufacturing process, more material (or heavier
material) will have to be collected to ensure the weight based recycling targets are met.
158
The European revised waste framework directive is currently being implemented into
national legislation and includes a requirement by 2015 for Member States to set up separate
waste collection schemes for at least paper, metal, plastic and glass. The UK response to this
is to encourage the separate collection of waste where this is technically, environmentally and
economically practical while still allowing for co-mingled collection of materials for
subsequent separate collection in a MRF to continue after 2015 where this is the most
effective means of increasing recycling rates in local circumstances. In addition the Directive
also sets targets for recycling or preparing for re-use at least 50% by weight of these
materials. The UK is also interpreting the requirement to recycle 50% of specified materials
to apply to the totality of household waste, not for each individual material. This has the
potential to further encourage the collection of heavier materials instead of those with higher
economic and environmental recycling value.
Further research is required to help local authorities model the management of wastes as a
resource, rather than as a way of disposing of a problem.
7.2.4 Research opportunity summary
Local authorities and the private sector need to focus on materials not waste within the
broader context of resource management and carbon reduction/savings as a medium to long
term strategy. Within the South East recycling performance for household waste is on target
and reliance on landfill is reducing, therefore the region needs to reach a point whereby
decisions made regarding collection and recovery are done so outside of the restricted
framework of statutory targets which currently drive waste management. Instead materials
across all waste streams should be considered in terms of their resource potential and carbon
impact. Placing the management of waste within a broader resource framework will allow
alignment of energy priorities and targets and ensure the contribution of resource
management to the carbon agenda is fully realised. To understand the impact of this approach
requires further research, it is necessary for the academic community to embrace this
changing approach and support the policy and management sector with evidence for the
future approach.
159
Local authorities and the private sector need to focus on materials not waste within the
broader context of resource management and carbon reduction/savings as a medium to long
term strategy. Within the South East recycling performance for household waste, is on target
and reliance on landfill is reducing. Therefore the region needs to reach a point whereby
decisions made regarding collection and recovery are done outside of the restricted
framework of statutory targets which currently drive waste management. Instead materials
across all waste streams should be considered in terms of their resource potential and carbon
impact. Placing the management of waste within a broader resource framework will allow
alignment of energy priorities and targets and ensure the contribution of resource
management to the carbon agenda is fully realised. To understand the impact of this approach
requires further research, it is necessary for the academic community to embrace this
changing approach and support the policy and management sector with evidence for the
future approach.
7.3 Conclusion
The research has presented the geographical, political and waste background to the area of
Brighton and Hove and East Sussex. It has identified the pressures and drivers for change and
it has identified most of the technological options available to a local authority. The author
has sought to alleviate the pressures on local government by constructing two mass flow
models; one that assesses mass flow through specific facilities, the latter performing the same
function, but additionally modelling the impact of the Landfill Allowance Trading scheme.
The two models were rigorously tested and critically used by two councils as the modelling
tool for their £1billion waste technologies procurement. As demonstrated by this thesis,
wastes management is not a static industry, indeed in 1999, commentators of the day were
suggesting that reaching the landfill targets in the UK for diversion were unachievable. Fast
forward ten years and the consensus is that zero waste places are achievable.
How has the mindset changed so much in a decade? There are many factors; statutory
government targets for recycling, the landfill tax escalator, the Landfill Allowance Trading
Scheme (LATS), Waste Strategy 2000 and 2007 and most importantly councils. There has
been move from a pick and tip system to a separate, sort, process, compost, recycle, recover
and finally dispose to landfill through a very complex logistical methodology. All in all a
major shift from single dimension service to a multi faceted industry. The systematic change
160
has produced impressive results; recycling increasing from under 10% to 37.5% in a decade,
a near fourfold change, less than 50% of MSW now goes to landfill, a near fivefold decrease,
unconceivable ten years ago. I wonder whether we have had the dynamic stimulus for the
next decade already, perhaps Hilary Benn and John Denham, DEFRA and CLG respectively,
have already set the target; Zero Waste to landfill.
The direction of travel for the industry points to an ever increasing need to construct
technology to deal with the waste our society produces; the MBM and LMBM help the
decision makers have the right information to improve the way waste is managed.
161
REFERENCES
ACR+ 2005, European campaign for waste reduction, 100 kg less waste per inhabitant,
Association of Cities and Regions for Recycling and sustainable Resource management,
http://www.acrplus.org/-kg
Adams K. T., Phillips P. S. & Morris J.R, 2000, A radical new development for sustainable
waste management in the UK: the introduction of local authority Best Value legislation.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 30, Issue 3, 1 September 2000, Pages 221-
244
Al Seadi, T., 2002, Quality management of AD residues from biogas production. IEA
Bioenergy, Task 24 – Energy from Biological Conversion of Organic Waste, January 2002.
Allen G., 2001, Research paper 01/117 - The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) House of
Commons Library. ISSN 1368-8456 18th December 2001
Alter H., 1989,. The origins of municipal solid waste: The relations between residues from
packaging materials and food Waste Management & Research, Volume 7, Issue 2, June 1989,
Pages 103-114
Aumonier 2001 – interview with Simon Aumonier, Partner in ERM consulting – The role of
Planning in Integrated Waste management
Barr S. and Gilg A. W., 2005, Conceptualising and analysing household attitudes and actions
to a growing environmental problem: Development and application of a framework to guide
local waste policy Applied Geography, Volume 25, Issue 3, July 2005, Pages 226-247
Bastin L., and Longden D. M., 2009, Comparing transport emissions and impacts for energy
recovery from domestic waste (EfW): Centralised and distributed disposal options for two
UK Counties. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Volume 33, Issue 6, November
2009, Pages 492-503
Braber K, 1995, Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid waste: A modern waste disposal
option on the verge of breakthrough Biomass and Bioenergy, Volume 9, Issues 1-5, 1995,
Pages 365-376
Braekman-Danheux C, D'haeyere A., Fontana A. and Laurent P. 1998, Upgrading of waste
derived solid fuel by steam gasification Fuel, Volume 77, Issues 1-2, January 1998, Pages 55-
59
Breakspere R.J., Heath P.J. and Morgan R.J. 1978, Waste glass — re-use or throw away?
Conservation & Recycling, Volume 2, Issue 1, 1978, Pages 49-58
Brunner P.H, and Ernst W. R. 1986, Alternative methods for the analysis of municipal solid
waste, Waste Management & Research, Volume 4, Issue 2, June 1986, Pages 147-160.
Burnley S, 2001,The impact of the European landfill directive on waste management in the
United Kingdom, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 32 (2001) 349–358
162
Burnley S.J., Ellis J.C., Flowerdew R., Poll A.J. and Prosser H. 2007, Assessing the
composition of municipal solid waste in Wales, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49
(2007) 264–283
Burnley S. J., 2007,. A review of municipal solid waste composition in the United Kingdom
Waste Management, Volume 27, Issue 10, Pages 1274-1285
Carlsson K., 1986, Heavy metals from ―energy from waste‖ plants—comparison of gas
cleaning systems, Waste Management & Research, Volume 4, Issue 1, March 1986, Pages
15-20
Carter 2001– interview with Tracy Carter, Project Director, ESCC and BHC PFI Contract –
the pressures of meeting contract deadlines
Cecchi F., Traverso P.G. and Cescon P., 1986, Anaerobic digestion of organic fraction of
municipal solid wastes — digester performance Science of The Total Environment, Volume
56, 15 November 1986, Pages 183-197
Cecchi F., Pavan P, Alvarez J. M., Bassettit A. and Cozzolinot C., 1991, Anaerobic digestion
of Municipal waste: thermophilic vs Mesophillic performance at High Solids, Waste
Management & Research (1991) 9, 305-315
Clift R., Doig A. and Finnveden G., 2000, The Application of Life Cycle Assessment to
Integrated Solid Waste Management: Part 1—Methodology, Process Safety and
Environmental Protection, Volume 78, Issue 4, July 2000, Pages 279-287
Coggins 2002, Civic Amenity Sites –Cinderella at last being invited to the Ball ? Chairman‘s
Paper given to ‗Making Better Use of Civic Amenity Sites‘ M-E-L Research Workshop
Seminar, Birmingham, 7th March 2002
Consonni S., Giugliano M., & Grosso M. Alternative strategies for energy recovery from
municipal solid waste: Part A: Mass and energy balances Waste Management, Volume 25,
Issue 2, 2005, Pages 123-135
Corker P and Davies J, 1999. Who's afraid of the Landfill Directive? The Waste Manager,
August 1999, pps 22-23
Dacombe P., Krivtsov V., Banks C. & Heaven S. 2004, An energy and materials flow model
for evaluation of alternatives for processing domestic and commercial wastes – a case study
of Southampton, University of Southampton
Department of Environment, 1990, Environmental Protection Act (1990) - UK Parts I and II,
Crown copyright, London, UK: HMSO, 16 July 1999
Department of the Environment, 1994, This common inheritance: the third year report:
Britain's environmental strategy, London: HMSO, 1994
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Less Waste - More Value
Consultation Paper on the Waste Strategy for England and Wales, June 1998 Crown
copyright, London, UK: HMSO
163
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), 1999. Limiting Landfill:
A Consultation paper on limiting landfill to meet the EC Landfill Directive's targets for the
landfill of biodegradable municipal waste, Crown copyright, London, UK: HMSO
DETR, 2000, Waste Strategy 2000 for England and Wales. Part 1. Crown copyright, London,
UK: HMSO 2000.
DETR, 2000b, Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies. Crown copyright,
London, UK: HMSO 2001.
DETR 2001, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR),
Environment in your pocket. HMSO, UK.
DECC 2009, Department of Energy and Climate change, Digest of United Kingdom energy
statistics (DUKES), Inland Consumption of Primary Fuels and Equivalent Energy Use,
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/publications/dukes/dukes.aspx
DECC 2009, Department of Energy and Climate change, Digest of United Kingdom energy
statistics (DUKES), Aggregate Energy balance 2007 Figures Table 7.1.1,
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/publications/dukes/dukes.aspx
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2003, Government response
to Strategy Unit report ‗Waste not, Want not‘, Crown copyright, London, UK: HMSO 2003
DEFRA, 2004, Municipal waste, commercial waste and the Landfill Allowances Trading
Scheme, Crown copyright, London, UK: HMSO August 2004
DEFRA, 2005, Landfill Allowances and Trading Scheme (England) (Amendment)
Regulations 2005, Crown copyright, London, UK: HMSO, 2005
DEFRA, 2006, Guidance on the Landfill Allowance Schemes: Municipal Waste revised June
2006 Crown copyright, London, UK: HMSO June 2006
DEFRA, 2006, Operational Waste Facilities in England and Wales at the end of June 2006,
Crown copyright, London, UK: HMSO 2006
DEFRA, 2007, Prepared by Enviros Consulting Limited on behalf of Defra as part of the
New Technologies Supporter Programme. Introductory Guide to Options for the Diversion of
Biodegradable Municipal Waste from Landfill, Crown copyright, London, UK: HMSO 2007
Dent C. G. & Krol A. A., 1990, Municipal Solid Waste Conversion to Energy, Biomass 22
(1990) 307-327
Dolk H., Vrijheid M., Armstrong B., Abramsky L., Bianchi F., Garne E., Nelen V., Robert
E., Scott J.E.S., Stone D., Tenconi R., 1998, Risk of congenital anomalies near hazardous-
waste landfill sites in Europe; the EUROHAZCON study. The Lancet, Vol 352, August 8,
1998
164
Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs (EFRA) Committee, 1999. Thirteenth Report:
The Operation of the Landfill Tax - Volume 1: Report and Proceeding of the Committee.
HMSO, London.
Eriksson O., Frostell B., Björklund A., Assefa G., Sundqvist J. -O., Granath J., Carlsson M.,
Baky A., Thyselius L.ORWARE—a simulation tool for waste management
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 36, Issue 4, November 2002, Pages 287-307
Edelmann W. Moser C. & Engeli H., 1997 More than 12 years of experience with
commercial anaerobic digestion of the organic fraction of municipal solid wastes in
Switzerland. Biomass & wood energy Programme 910018 - Biomasse (Übrige Biomasse,
Abfälle, Klärschlamm, ohne Holz), Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and
Communications, Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE), 01.11.1997
Emery A., Davies A., Griffiths A. & Williams K., 2007, Environmental and economic
modelling: A case study of municipal solid waste management scenarios in Wales
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 49, Issue 3, January 2007, Pages 244-263
Energy Technology Support Unit (ETSU), 1998, An Introduction to Household Waste
Management: Energy-from-waste incineration, ETSU, Harwell, Oxfordshire, 1998.
Environment Agency 2001, ‗Large Scale Composting – a practical manual for the UK‘
Crown copyright, London, UK: HMSO, May 2001.
European Council, 1975 European Council, Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC, Official Journal of the European
Communities L 194 (1975), pp. 039–041.
European Council, 1991a European Council, Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December
1991 on hazardous waste, Official Journal of the European Communities L 377 (1991), pp.
020–027 (Amended by Council Directive 94/31/EC. Official Journal of the European
Communities, L 168, p. 028.).
European Council, 1991b European Council, Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991
concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, Official Journal of the
European Communities L 230 (1991), pp. 001–032.
European Council, 1994 European Council, Council Decision 94/904/EC of 22 December
1994 establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive
91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, Official Journal of the European Communities L 356
(1994), pp. 014–022.
European Council, 1999 European Council, Council Directive 99/31/EC of 6 April 1999 on
the landfill of waste, Official Journal of the European Communities L 182 (1999), pp. 001–
019.
European Council, 2001 European Council, Council Decision 2001/573/EC of 23 July 2001
amending Commission Decision 2000/532/EC as regards the list of wastes, Official Journal
of the European Communities L 203 (2001), pp. 018–019.
165
European Council, 2003 European Council, Council Decision 2003/33/EC of 19 December
2002 establishing criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills pursuant to
Article 16 of and Annex II to Directive 1999/31/EC, Official Journal of the European
Communities L 11 (2003), pp. 027–049.
European Commission, 2008, Green Paper - On the management of bio-waste in the
European Union {SEC(2008) 2936}, Brussels, 3.12.2008, COM(2008) 811 final ENV 1036
AGRI 471
European Environment Agency (EEA) 2006, EEA Technical report No 5/2006 Paper and
cardboard — recovery or disposal? Review of life cycle assessment and cost-benefit analysis
on the recovery and disposal of paper and cardboard, European Environment Agency,
Copenhagen, Denmark ISBN 92-9167-783-3
Fenton R. 1978, Current trends in municipal solid waste disposal in New York City
Resource Recovery and Conservation, Volume 1, Issue 2, October 1975, Pages 167-176
Flyvbjerg B., Mette K. Holm S., and Buhl S. L., 2002, Underestimating Costs in Public
Works Projects: Error or Lie?, Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 68, no. 3,
Summer 2002, pp. 279-295
Fricke K., Santen H., Wallmann R., Hüttner A. & Dichtl N., 2007Operating problems in
anaerobic digestion plants resulting from nitrogen in MSW, Waste Management, Volume 27,
Issue 1, 2007, Pages 30-43
Fruteau de Laclos H., Desbois S. and Saint-Joly C., Anaerobic digestion of municipal solid
organic waste: Valorga full-scale plant in tilburg, Water Science and Technology Volume 36,
Issues 6-7, 1997 , Pages 457-462
Garg A., Smith R., Hill D., Longhurst P.J., Pollard S.J.T. & Simms N.J.An integrated
appraisal of energy recovery options in the United Kingdom using solid recovered fuel
derived from municipal solid waste, Waste Management, Volume 29, Issue 8, August 2009,
Pages 2289-2297
Gray KR, Biddlestone AJ, 1980, Agricultural use of composted town refuse. Inorganic
Pollution and Agriculture. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Reference Book 326,
London, UK, 1980. pp. 279–305.
Gim B., Deuermeyer B. L. & Curry G. L.Optimal scheduling of a single anaerobic digester
with multiple feedstocks, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Volume 41, Issue 1, October
2001, Pages 1-15
Gray J.M., 2002, Landraising of waste in England, 1990–2000: a survey of the
geomorphological issues raised by planning applications, Applied Geography 22 (2002) 209–
234
Hegberg A. B., Hallenbeck W. H., Brenniman G. R. and Wadden R. A. 1991. Municipal solid
waste incineration with energy recovery in the U.S.A.—Technologies, facilities and vendors
for less than 550 tons per day. Waste Management & Research (1991) 9, 127-152
166
Hopkowicz M., Hultman B., Kurbiel J., Plaza E. (Editors), TRITA-AMI REPORT 3088,
ISSN 1400-1306, ISRN KTH/AMI/REPORT 3088-SE, ISBN 91-7283-190-1. 2001
IESE 2009, presentation to NAWDO, MBT Local Authority Support Project, September
2009
Iyengar S. R. & Bhave P. P., 2006, In-vessel composting of household wastes, Waste
Management, Volume 26, Issue 10, 2006, Pages 1070-1080
Kiely G., Tayfur G., Dolan C. & K. Tanji, 1997, Physical and mathematical modelling of
anaerobic digestion of organic wastes, Water Research, Volume 31, Issue 3, March 1997,
Pages 534-540
Kirkeby J. T., Birgisdottir H., B. G. Singh, Hauschild M., &. Christensen T.H Modelling of
environmental impacts of solid waste landfilling within the life-cycle analysis program
EASEWASTE Waste Management, Volume 27, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 961-970
Kuhlman L.R., 1990, Windrow composting of agricultural and municipal wastes, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, Volume 4, Issues 1-2, August 1990, Pages 151-160
Lewis, M. F.; Haug, T R.; Poosti, A; Redd, K.R., 2007, Proceedings of the Water
Environment Federation, Residuals and Biosolids Management 2007, pp. 338-348(11)
Lee P., D. Fitzsimons and D. Parker, 2005, Quantification of the Potential Energy from
Residues (EfR) in the UK, ICE, RPA, London (2005).
Lee S., 2002, presentation to the IWM conference, Torquay 2002
Lu Y., Wu X, Guo J., 2009, Characteristics of municipal solid waste and sewage sludge co-
composting, Waste Management, Volume 29, Issue 3, March 2009, Pages 1152-1157
Lyas J. K., Shaw P. J. & Mark van Vugt, 2005, Kerbside recycling in the London Borough of
Havering: progress and priorities, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Volume 45, Issue
1, September 2005, Pages 1-17
Marchettini N., Ridolfi R. & Rustici M., 2007. An environmental analysis for comparing
waste management options and strategies Waste Management, Volume 27, Issue 4, 2007,
Pages 562-571
Mattsson C.H., Berg P.E.O. & Clarkson P.A.The development of systems for property close
collection of recyclables: experiences from Sweden and England, Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, Volume 38, Issue 1, April 2003, Pages 39-57
Maycox, A., 2003. The Village Initiative Project: achieving household waste minimisation in
the rural locale. CIWM Sci. Tech. Rev. 4 3, pp. 10–17
Mazzanti M. & Zoboli R., 2008, Waste generation, waste disposal and policy effectiveness,
Evidence on decoupling from the European Union, Resources, Conservation and Recycling
52 (2008) 1221–1234
167
McOmish D., 1996, East Chisenbury: ritual and rubbish at the British Bronze Age-Iron Age
transition, Antiquity, March, 1996
Mercia Waste website, Mercia Energy from Waste Facility, http://www.envirecover.co.uk
Miranda M.L. & Hale B., 1997, Waste not, want not: the private and social costs of waste-to-
energy production, Energy Policy, Volume 25, Issue 6, May 1997, Pages 587-600
Morrissey A. J. & Browne J., 2004, Waste management models and their application to
sustainable waste management, Waste Management, Volume 24, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 297-
308
Mühle S., Balsam I., and Cheeseman C.R., 2010, Comparison of carbon emissions associated
with municipal solid waste management in Germany and the UK
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 8
February 2010,
Newton J. W., 1983, Planning, design and on-going control of environmental protection
practices for landfill sites in the U.K. Waste Management & Research, Volume 1, Issue 4,
1983, Pages 337-346
Nguyen P.H.L., Kuruparan P., & Visvanathan C., 2007, Anaerobic digestion of municipal
solid waste as a treatment prior to landfill, Bioresource Technology, Volume 98, Issue 2,
January 2007, Pages 380-387
Nie Y., Li T., Yan G., Wang Y. & Ma X., An Optimal Model and Its Application for the
Management of Municipal Solid Waste from Regional Small Cities in China, ISSN 1047-
3289 Journal of Air & Waste Management Association. 54: Feb 2004, pages 191–199,
Office of Government Commerce (OGC), 2006, Kelly Report to the Financial Secretary to
the Treasury - Improving competition and capacity planning in the municipal waste market.
Crown copyright, London, UK: HMSO 2006
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Environment policy
committee, 2004,Working Group on Waste Prevention and Recycling, Working Group on
Environmental Information and Outlooks- Towards Waste Prevention Performance
indicators, ENV/EPOC/WGWPR/SE(2004)1/FINAL, 30-Sep-2004
Ostrem K., 2004, Greening Waste: Anaerobic digestion for treating the organic fraction of
municipal waste, Submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements for M.S. thesis in Earth
Resources Engineering Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering Fu Foundation
of School of Engineering and Applied Science, Columbia University, May 2004
OWS 2000, Organic Waste Systems (OWS) Fact-file on DRANCO AD facility,
http://www.ows.be/pages/index.php?choose_lang=EN&menu=85
Papageorgiou A., Barton J.R. & A. Karagiannidis Assessment of the greenhouse effect
impact of technologies used for energy recovery from municipal waste: A case for England,
Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 90, Issue 10, July 2009, Pages 2999-3012
168
PE Europe 2003, PE Europe GMBH, Business Briefing: CPI Technology 2003
Peacock 2000 – interview with Amelia Peacock, Manager of the Community Health and
Environment team, Brighton & Hove City Council – the pressures of Waste Management
Petts J., 1992, Incineration risk perceptions and public concern: Experience in the U.K.
improving risk communication Waste Management & Research, Volume 10, Issue 2, April
1992, Pages 169-182
Petts J., 1994, Effective Waste Management: Understanding and Dealing With Public
Concerns, Waste Management & Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, (1994) 207-222
Phillips P.S., Gronow B. & Read A. D., 1998, A regional perspective on waste minimisation:
a case study of the East Midlands of England, Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
Volume 23, Issue 3, August 1998, Pages 127-161
Price J. L., 2001, The landfill directive and the challenge ahead: demands and pressures on
the UK householder, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 32 (2001) 333–348
Porteous A., 2005, Why energy from waste incineration is an essential component of
environmentally responsible waste management Waste Management, Volume 25, Issue 4,
2005, Pages 451-459
Qin W., Egolfopoulos F. N., Tsotsis T. T., 2000, Fundamental and environmental aspects of
landfill gas utilization for power generation. Chemical Engineering Journal, Volume 82,
Issues 1-3, 15 March 2001, Pages 157-172
Qviström M., 2008, A waste of time? On spatial planning and ‗wastelands‘ at the city edge of
Malmö (Sweden), Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Volume 7, Issue 3, 1 August 2008,
Pages 157-169
Rasapoor M., Nasrabadi T., Kamali M., & Hoveidi H., 2009, The effects of aeration rate on
generated compost quality, using aerated static pile method, Waste Management, Volume 29,
Issue 2, February 2009, Pages 570-573
Read A. D., Phillips P.S. & Murphy A., 1997, English county councils and their agenda for
waste minimisation, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 20 (1997) 277-294
Read A. D. 1999a ‗‗A weekly doorstep recycling collection, I had no idea we could!‘‘
Overcoming the local barriers to participation, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 26
(1999) 217–249
Read A. D. 1999b , Making waste work: making UK national solid waste strategy work at the
local scale, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 26 (1999) 259–285
Reichenbach J., 2008, Status and prospects of pay-as-you-throw in Europe – A review of
pilot research and implementation studies, Waste Management, Volume 28, Issue 12,
December 2008, Pages 2809-2814
169
Renkow M. & Rubin A. R., 1998, Does municipal solid waste composting make economic
sense?, Journal of Environmental Management (1998) 53, 339–347
Resource Futures 2009, WR0121 – Understanding Waste Growth at Local Authority Level,
Final Report to Defra, RF project no: 506, 3rd October 2009
Riley 2001 – interview with Keith Riley, Managing Director of Hampshire Waste Services –
How the Private sector manages a PFI contract
Rodríguez-Iglesias J., Marañón E., Castrillón L., Riestra P. & Sastre H., 2003, Life cycle
analysis of municipal solid waste management possibilities in Asturias, Spain, Waste
Management & Research, Vol. 21, No. 6, 535-548 (2003)
Rushbrook P. E . & Finnecy E . E ., 1988, Planning for future waste management operations
in developing countries, Waste Management & Research (1988) 6, 1-21
Schevon G. R. & Damas G., 1986, Using double liners in landfill design and operation,
Waste Management & Research, Volume 4, Issue 2, June 1986, Pages 161-176
Six W. and De Baere, L. Dry Anaerobic Conversion: The Dranco Process Organic Waste
Systems N.V., Gent, Belgium (DoE 1990)
Slater R., Frederickson J., Thomas C., Wield D. & Potter S., 2007, A critical evaluation of
partnerships in municipal waste management in England, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Volume 51, Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 643-664
South East Regional Plan (SERP) 160: Revised Waste Planning Advice A Sustainable Waste
Planning Strategy For The South East 1996-2010 (March 1997).
Strategy Unit, 2002 'Analysis of household waste composition and factors driving waste
increases', (2002) Analysis for 'Waste Not, Want Not' Prime Ministers Strategy Unit, 2002,
Crown copyright, London, UK: HMSO
Stypka T., 2007, Integrated solid waste management model as a tool of sustainable
development, Proceedings of Polish-Swedish seminars, Stockholm June 6-8, 2004 Integration
and optimisation of urban sanitation systems. E. Plaza, E. Levlin, (Editors) TRITA-
LWR.REPORT 3017, ISSN 1650-8610, ISRN KTH/LWR/REPORT 3017-SE, ISBN 978-91-
7178-825-2. 2007
Stypka T. Proceedings of a Polish-Swedish seminar, Nowy Targ - Zakopane, October 24-26,
2001. Wastewater, Sludge and Solid Waste Management, Oct 2001
Taseli B. K, 2007, The impact of the European Landfill Directive on waste management
strategy and current legislation in Turkey‘s Specially Protected Areas, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 52 (2007) 119–135
Thomas, 2001 C. Thomas, Public understanding and its effect on recycling performance in
Hampshire and Milton Keynes, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 32 (2001), pp. 259–
274
170
Tonglet M., Phillips P.S., Bates M. P. Determining the drivers for householder pro-
environmental behaviour: waste minimisation compared to recycling, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 42 (2004) 27–48
Tyson K. S., Rymes M., Hammond E., 1996, Future potential for MSW energy development,
Biomass and Bioenergy, Volume 10, Issues 2-3, 1996, Pages 111-124
Tucker P. & Smith D., (1999), Simulating Household Waste Management Behaviour, Journal
of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation vol. 2, no. 3, 30-Jun-1999
Veolia Environment 2009, - Financial and Strategic Analysis Review from Global Markets
Direct - Company Reports 23 page report published Aug 20, 2009
Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) 2007, Composting Wood or Cardboard
Waste with Green Garden or Household Kitchen Waste, ISBN: 1-84405-299-0 Research
date: August 2005 – December 2006, Published May 2007, Banbury, UK
Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) 2009, Choosing the right recycling
collection system Published 2009, Banbury, UK
Waste watch 2004, History of waste and recycling information sheet, updated October 2004
http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/HistoryofWaste.pdf
Woodard R. Bench M., Harder M. K. & Stantzos N., 2004, The optimisation of household
waste recycling centres for increased recycling—a case study in Sussex, UK, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, Volume 43, Issue 1, December 2004, Pages 75-93
Wright 2000– interview with Mitchell Wright, Site manager of Beddingham landfill site,
Lewes, operated by Viridor
Zhang R., El-Mashad H.M., Hartman K., Wang F, Liu G., Choate C. & Gamble P., 2007,
Characterization of food waste as feedstock for anaerobic digestion, Bioresource Technology,
Volume 98, Issue 4, March 2007, Pages 929-935
Zhiqiang K.Z.L., Solutions for Urban Residential Garbage Treatment; Urban Manage.
Technol. 2001, 3, 8-12.
171
Appendix 1 Local Authority Officer Questionnaire
Key factors for optimal model for usage by Local Authorities Questionnaire
I am conducting research to understand the parameters that local authority
officers would require to enable them to model the future size of facilities to
meet European and UK recycling and recovery targets.
Could you please score the following factors on priority for ease of usage out of
5, with 1 being highest priority and 5 being the lowest?
Thank you for your time, I will feed back to you the results.
David Greenfield
Parameter Score
Understanding of processes to be used
Behaviour of Processes is evidenced
Evidence and processes included in the
collection service
Ease of data entry aligned to current
reporting
Ease of analysis
High quality data history
Format of model
Results of individual questionnaires and scoring of the Mode average
Key factors for
optimal model for
usage by Local
Authorities
(1 being
highest, 5
lowest)
Understanding
of processes to
be used
Behaviour of
Processes is
evidenced
Evidence and
processes
included in
the collection
service
Ease of data
entry aligned
to current
reporting
Ease of
analysis
High quality
data history
Format of
model
Priority for ease of
usage 1.55 2 1.95 1.25 1 2.1 4.2
Officer 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 5
Officer 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 5
Officer 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 4
Officer 4 1 3 1 1 1 2 4
Officer 5 1 2 2 1 1 1 4
Officer 6 2 1 3 2 1 3 5
Officer 7 1 4 1 2 1 3 4
Officer 8 1 2 3 1 1 2 4
Officer 9 1 1 1 1 1 2 4
Officer 10 2 2 2 1 1 2 4
Officer 11 3 2 2 1 1 2 3
Officer 12 2 3 2 2 1 3 4
Officer 13 1 2 2 1 1 2 5
Officer 14 1 2 2 1 1 1 4
Officer 15 2 1 2 2 1 2 4
Officer 16 1 2 2 1 1 3 3
Officer 17 3 2 2 1 1 2 5
Officer 18 1 1 3 1 1 2 5
Officer 19 1 2 2 2 1 3 4
Officer 20 1 2 2 1 1 1 4
173
Appendix 2: RS1
The following sheets show the three parts of the RS1 Mass balance Model, as used by East Sussex
County Council and Brighton & Hove City Council for the PFI Integrated Waste Management
Services Contract (IWMSC)
174
RS1 Input Sheet
Financial
Year
Contract
YearMRF1 MRF2 MRF3 MRF4
On-farm
Composting
Anaerobic
Digestor
Composter 1
throughput from
AD plant when
operational
Composter 2
throughput
from AD plant
when
operational
Composter 1
throughput IF
NO AD plant
Composter 2
throughput IF
NO AD plant
Third Party
wasteRDF Plant
Household
Waste diverted
by use of bring
banks
HWS Bring
banks
Throughput of
EfW 1
Throughput
of EfW 2 EfW 1 EfW 2 Perecnetage
growth Per year
for Municipal
Waste
Perecnetage
growth Per year
for Household
Waste
85% 85% 0% 0% 100% 50% 100% 100% N/A 35% 100% 100% 69% 69% Base Ash 28% 28% (Percentage) (Percentage)
15% 15% 0% 0% N/A 50% 0% 0% N/A N/A 65% N/A N/A 31% 31%Base ash to
landfill50% 50%
50% 50% 0% 0% N/A 50% 0% 0% N/A N/A 50% 100% N/A N/A 50% 50%
50% 50% 0% 0% N/A 50% 0% 0% N/A N/A 50% 0% N/A N/A 50% 50%
0% 0% 0% 0% N/A 0% 0% 0% N/A N/A 0% 0% N/A N/A 0% 0%
2002/3 1 - - - - 5,000.00 - - - - 19,114.00 75,000.00 15,044.48 - - - 0.00% 0.00%
2003/4 2 40,000.00 - - - 15,000.00 - - - - 19,496.00 75,000.00 3,836.34 6,905.42 - - 2.00% 2.00%
2004/5 3 40,000.00 - - - 15,000.00 - - - - 19,886.00 75,000.00 3,913.07 7,043.52 - - 2.00% 2.00%
2005/6 4 40,000.00 16,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 20,284.00 75,000.00 3,991.33 7,184.40 - - 2.00% 2.00%
2006/7 5 40,000.00 16,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 20,690.00 75,000.00 4,071.16 7,328.08 - - 2.00% 2.00%
2007/8 6 40,000.00 16,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 20,897.00 18,750.00 4,111.87 7,401.36 - - 1.00% 1.00%
2008/9 7 40,000.00 62,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 21,105.00 - 2,076.49 7,475.38 150,000.00 - 1.00% 1.00%
2009/10 8 40,000.00 62,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 21,317.00 - 2,097.26 7,550.13 150,000.00 - 1.00% 1.00%
2010/11 9 40,000.00 62,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 21,530.00 - 2,118.23 7,625.63 150,000.00 - 1.00% 1.00%
2011/12 10 40,000.00 62,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 21,745.00 - 2,139.41 10,269.19 150,000.00 - 1.00% 1.00%
2012/13 11 40,000.00 62,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 21,854.00 - 2,150.11 10,320.53 150,000.00 - 0.50% 0.50%
2013/14 12 40,000.00 62,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 21,963.00 - 2,160.86 10,372.13 150,000.00 - 0.50% 0.50%
2014/15 13 40,000.00 62,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 22,073.00 - 2,171.67 10,423.99 150,000.00 - 0.50% 0.50%
2015/16 14 40,000.00 62,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 22,183.00 - 2,182.52 13,095.14 180,000.00 - 0.50% 0.50%
2016/17 15 40,000.00 62,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 22,294.00 - 2,193.44 13,160.62 180,000.00 - 0.50% 0.50%
2017/18 16 40,000.00 62,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 22,406.00 - 2,204.40 13,226.42 180,000.00 - 0.50% 0.50%
2018/19 17 40,000.00 62,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 22,518.00 - 2,215.43 13,292.55 180,000.00 - 0.50% 0.50%
2019/20 18 40,000.00 62,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 22,630.00 - 2,226.50 13,359.02 180,000.00 - 0.50% 0.50%
2020/21 19 40,000.00 62,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 22,743.00 - 2,237.64 13,425.81 180,000.00 - 0.50% 0.50%
2021/22 20 40,000.00 62,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 22,857.00 - 2,248.82 13,492.94 180,000.00 - 0.50% 0.50%
2022/23 21 40,000.00 62,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 22,971.00 - 2,260.07 13,560.41 180,000.00 - 0.50% 0.50%
2023/24 22 40,000.00 62,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 23,086.00 - 2,271.37 13,628.21 180,000.00 - 0.50% 0.50%
2024/25 23 40,000.00 62,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 23,202.00 - 2,282.72 13,696.35 180,000.00 - 0.50% 0.50%
2025/26 24 40,000.00 62,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 23,318.00 - 2,294.14 13,764.83 180,000.00 - 0.50% 0.50%
2026/27 25 40,000.00 62,000.00 - - 5,000.00 60,000.00 30,000.00 - - 23,434.00 - 2,305.61 13,833.65 180,000.00 - 0.50% 0.50%
Total residues
residues to landfill
residues to efw
residues to benefical
use
-
-
-
-
HW growth
EFW ResiduesThroughputs and efficiencies
Efficiency of plant
0%
Base figure HW 376,112
Input column for MW &
HW growth0.0%
Base figure MW 393,271
Waste Growth
Fly ash 3% 3%
Residue to
Beneficial
Use
50% 50%
175
The RS1 Calculation sheet:
The following nine pages are screen shots of the single spreadsheet that is used to calculate the mass flow of waste between facilities;
each sheet is shown for the full twenty five years. The yellow cells show the data that has been imported from the input sheet. The
aquamarine rows refer to the target years set in Waste Strategy 2000. It should be noted that there are three waste columns; MSW
which has been then been split into Contract Household waste and Contract waste other Household waste, this division was required for
the PFI contract.
176
MRF Calculation Sheet
Total MRF
throughput
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
Financial
Year
Contract
Year
Total
Municipal
Waste
throughput
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract Waste
other than
Household Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
throughput
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
throughput
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
throughput
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
2002/3 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2003/4 2 40,000 37,717 2,283 34,000 32,059 1,941 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40,000
2004/5 3 40,000 37,728 2,272 34,000 32,069 1,931 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40,000
2005/6 4 40,000 37,738 2,262 34,000 32,078 1,922 16,000 15,095 905 13,600 12,831 769 - - - - - - - - - - - - 56,000
2006/7 5 40,000 37,749 2,251 34,000 32,086 1,914 16,000 15,099 901 13,600 12,835 765 - - - - - - - - - - - - 56,000
2007/8 6 40,000 38,077 1,923 34,000 32,366 1,634 16,000 15,231 769 13,600 12,946 654 - - - - - - - - - - - - 56,000
2008/9 7 40,000 38,166 1,834 34,000 32,441 1,559 62,000 59,157 2,843 52,700 50,283 2,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - 102,000
2009/10 8 40,000 38,166 1,834 34,000 32,441 1,559 62,000 59,157 2,843 52,700 50,283 2,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - 102,000
2010/11 9 40,000 38,166 1,834 34,000 32,441 1,559 62,000 59,157 2,843 52,700 50,283 2,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - 102,000
2011/12 10 40,000 38,166 1,834 34,000 32,441 1,559 62,000 59,157 2,843 52,700 50,283 2,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - 102,000
2012/13 11 40,000 38,166 1,834 34,000 32,441 1,559 62,000 59,157 2,843 52,700 50,283 2,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - 102,000
2013/14 12 40,000 38,166 1,834 34,000 32,441 1,559 62,000 59,157 2,843 52,700 50,283 2,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - 102,000
2014/15 13 40,000 38,166 1,834 34,000 32,441 1,559 62,000 59,157 2,843 52,700 50,283 2,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - 102,000
2015/16 14 40,000 38,166 1,834 34,000 32,441 1,559 62,000 59,157 2,843 52,700 50,283 2,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - 102,000
2016/17 15 40,000 38,166 1,834 34,000 32,441 1,559 62,000 59,157 2,843 52,700 50,283 2,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - 102,000
2017/18 16 40,000 38,166 1,834 34,000 32,441 1,559 62,000 59,157 2,843 52,700 50,283 2,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - 102,000
2018/19 17 40,000 38,166 1,834 34,000 32,441 1,559 62,000 59,157 2,843 52,700 50,283 2,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - 102,000
2019/20 18 40,000 38,166 1,834 34,000 32,441 1,559 62,000 59,157 2,843 52,700 50,283 2,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - 102,000
2020/21 19 40,000 38,166 1,834 34,000 32,441 1,559 62,000 59,157 2,843 52,700 50,283 2,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - 102,000
2021/22 20 40,000 38,166 1,834 34,000 32,441 1,559 62,000 59,157 2,843 52,700 50,283 2,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - 102,000
2022/23 21 40,000 38,166 1,834 34,000 32,441 1,559 62,000 59,157 2,843 52,700 50,283 2,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - 102,000
2023/24 22 40,000 38,166 1,834 34,000 32,441 1,559 62,000 59,157 2,843 52,700 50,283 2,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - 102,000
2024/25 23 40,000 38,166 1,834 34,000 32,441 1,559 62,000 59,157 2,843 52,700 50,283 2,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - 102,000
2025/26 24 40,000 38,166 1,834 34,000 32,441 1,559 62,000 59,157 2,843 52,700 50,283 2,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - 102,000
2026/27 25 40,000 38,166 1,834 34,000 32,441 1,559 62,000 59,157 2,843 52,700 50,283 2,417 - - - - - - - - - - - - 102,000
MRF 2 Diversion of Household Waste
stream MRF3 throughput
MRF 3 Diversion of Household Waste
stream MRF4 throughput
MRF 4 Diversion of Household Waste
stream
Type of Year
MRF 1 throughputMRF 1 Diversion of Household Waste
stream MRF 2 throughput
177
MRF Diversion & Composting section
Diversion of
Household
Waste to
facilities i.e.
throughput of
MRFs
Diversion of
dry recyclables
from landfill
through MRF's
Percentage of
Household Waste
diverted by
composting
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (Percentage) (Percentage) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (Percentage)
64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Total Municipal
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total Municipal
Waste
- - - - - - 0.0% 0.0% - - - - - - 5,000 4,713 287 5,000 4,713 287 1.3%
34,000 32,059 1,941 - - - 10.4% 8.9% - - - - - - 15,000 14,144 856 15,000 14,144 856 3.9%
34,000 32,069 1,931 - - - 10.2% 8.7% - - - - - - 15,000 14,148 852 15,000 14,148 852 3.8%
47,600 44,909 2,691 - - - 14.0% 11.9% 30,000 28,304 1,696 - - - 5,000 4,717 283 35,000 33,021 1,979 8.8%
47,600 44,921 2,679 - - - 13.8% 11.7% 30,000 28,312 1,688 - - - 5,000 4,719 281 35,000 33,030 1,970 8.6%
47,600 45,312 2,288 - - - 13.6% 11.6% 30,000 28,558 1,442 - - - 5,000 4,760 240 35,000 33,318 1,682 8.5%
86,700 82,724 3,976 15,300 13,889 668 24.6% 20.9% 30,000 28,624 1,376 - - - 5,000 4,771 229 35,000 33,395 1,605 8.4%
86,700 82,724 3,976 15,300 13,889 668 24.3% 20.7% 30,000 28,624 1,376 - - - 5,000 4,771 229 35,000 33,395 1,605 8.3%
86,700 82,724 3,976 15,300 13,889 668 24.1% 20.5% 30,000 28,624 1,376 - - - 5,000 4,771 229 35,000 33,395 1,605 8.3%
86,700 82,724 3,976 15,300 13,889 668 23.8% 20.3% 30,000 28,624 1,376 - - - 5,000 4,771 229 35,000 33,395 1,605 8.2%
86,700 82,724 3,976 15,300 13,889 668 23.7% 20.2% 30,000 28,624 1,376 - - - 5,000 4,771 229 35,000 33,395 1,605 8.1%
86,700 82,724 3,976 15,300 13,889 668 23.6% 20.1% 30,000 28,624 1,376 - - - 5,000 4,771 229 35,000 33,395 1,605 8.1%
86,700 82,724 3,976 15,300 13,889 668 23.5% 20.0% 30,000 28,624 1,376 - - - 5,000 4,771 229 35,000 33,395 1,605 8.1%
86,700 82,724 3,976 15,300 13,889 668 23.4% 19.9% 30,000 28,624 1,376 - - - 5,000 4,771 229 35,000 33,395 1,605 8.0%
86,700 82,724 3,976 15,300 13,889 668 23.3% 19.8% 30,000 28,624 1,376 - - - 5,000 4,771 229 35,000 33,395 1,605 8.0%
86,700 82,724 3,976 15,300 13,889 668 23.1% 19.7% 30,000 28,624 1,376 - - - 5,000 4,771 229 35,000 33,395 1,605 7.9%
86,700 82,724 3,976 15,300 13,889 668 23.0% 19.6% 30,000 28,624 1,376 - - - 5,000 4,771 229 35,000 33,395 1,605 7.9%
86,700 82,724 3,976 15,300 13,889 668 22.9% 19.5% 30,000 28,624 1,376 - - - 5,000 4,771 229 35,000 33,395 1,605 7.9%
86,700 82,724 3,976 15,300 13,889 668 22.8% 19.4% 30,000 28,624 1,376 - - - 5,000 4,771 229 35,000 33,395 1,605 7.8%
86,700 82,724 3,976 15,300 13,889 668 22.7% 19.3% 30,000 28,624 1,376 - - - 5,000 4,771 229 35,000 33,395 1,605 7.8%
86,700 82,724 3,976 15,300 13,889 668 22.6% 19.2% 30,000 28,624 1,376 - - - 5,000 4,771 229 35,000 33,395 1,605 7.7%
86,700 82,724 3,976 15,300 13,889 668 22.5% 19.1% 30,000 28,624 1,376 - - - 5,000 4,771 229 35,000 33,395 1,605 7.7%
86,700 82,724 3,976 15,300 13,889 668 22.3% 19.0% 30,000 28,624 1,376 - - - 5,000 4,771 229 35,000 33,395 1,605 7.7%
86,700 82,724 3,976 15,300 13,889 668 22.2% 18.9% 30,000 28,624 1,376 - - - 5,000 4,771 229 35,000 33,395 1,605 7.6%
86,700 82,724 3,976 15,300 13,889 668 22.1% 18.8% 30,000 28,624 1,376 - - - 5,000 4,771 229 35,000 33,395 1,605 7.6%
On-farm Total diversion of Household Waste from
landfill through composters
Total diversion of Household Waste
from landfill via MRF'sTotal residues to EFW from MRF's
Composter 1 throughput from AD plant
when operational
Composter 2 throughput from AD plant
when operational
178
Bring Bank and Recycling Rate Calculations
Household Waste
diverted by use of bring
banks
HWS Bring banks
Percentage of Household
Waste stream that is diverted
by Bring banks
Third party recycling outside
of contract
Percentage of Household
Waste stream that is diverted
by Third Party
Household Waste stream
recycled
(tonnes) (tonnes) (Percentage) (tonnes) (Percentage) (tonnes) (Percentage)
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Third Party Waste Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract Waste
other than
Household Waste
Third Party Waste Total Municipal Waste
15,044 - 4.00% 19,114 5.08% 39,158 19,758 287 19,114 10.4%
3,836 6,905 2.80% 19,496 5.08% 79,238 56,945 2,797 19,496 20.7%
3,913 7,044 2.80% 19,886 5.08% 79,843 57,173 2,783 19,886 20.4%
3,991 7,184 2.80% 20,284 5.08% 114,060 89,105 4,670 20,284 28.6%
4,071 7,328 2.80% 20,690 5.08% 114,689 89,350 4,649 20,690 28.2%
4,112 7,401 2.80% 20,897 5.08% 115,010 90,143 3,970 20,897 28.0%
2,076 7,475 2.30% 21,105 5.08% 152,357 125,671 5,581 21,105 36.7%
2,097 7,550 2.30% 21,317 5.08% 152,664 125,766 5,581 21,317 36.4%
2,118 7,626 2.30% 21,530 5.08% 152,974 125,863 5,581 21,530 36.1%
2,139 10,269 2.90% 21,745 5.08% 155,854 128,527 5,581 21,745 36.4%
2,150 10,321 2.90% 21,854 5.08% 156,025 128,589 5,581 21,854 36.3%
2,161 10,372 2.90% 21,963 5.08% 156,196 128,652 5,581 21,963 36.1%
2,172 10,424 2.90% 22,073 5.08% 156,369 128,714 5,581 22,073 36.0%
2,183 13,095 3.50% 22,183 5.08% 159,161 131,396 5,581 22,183 36.5%
2,193 13,161 3.50% 22,294 5.08% 159,348 131,473 5,581 22,294 36.3%
2,204 13,226 3.50% 22,406 5.08% 159,537 131,550 5,581 22,406 36.2%
2,215 13,293 3.50% 22,518 5.08% 159,726 131,627 5,581 22,518 36.0%
2,227 13,359 3.50% 22,630 5.08% 159,916 131,704 5,581 22,630 35.9%
2,238 13,426 3.50% 22,743 5.08% 160,106 131,782 5,581 22,743 35.8%
2,249 13,493 3.50% 22,857 5.08% 160,299 131,861 5,581 22,857 35.6%
2,260 13,560 3.50% 22,971 5.08% 160,491 131,939 5,581 22,971 35.5%
2,271 13,628 3.50% 23,086 5.08% 160,686 132,018 5,581 23,086 35.4%
2,283 13,696 3.50% 23,202 5.08% 160,881 132,098 5,581 23,202 35.2%
Household Waste Recycling RateRecycling
Bring banks Recycling rate
Diversion of Waste from landfill via recycling
179
RDF & Anaerobic Digestion
Capacity of plant
Diversion of
Municipal
Waste from
landfill via
RDF
Percentage
of Municipal
Waste
recovery by
RDF
Percentage of
Municipal Waste
recovery by AD
(tonnes) (tonnes) (Percentage) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (Percentage)
95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
Total Municipal
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Total Municipal Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total Municipal
Waste
75,000 26,250 6.67% - - - - - - - - - 0.0%
75,000 26,250 6.54% - - - - - - - - - 0.0%
75,000 26,250 6.42% - - - - - - - - - 0.0%
75,000 26,250 6.29% 60,000.00 56,608 3,392 30,000.00 28,304 1,696 30,000 28,304 1,696 7.2%
75,000 26,250 6.17% 60,000.00 56,623 3,377 30,000.00 28,312 1,688 30,000 28,312 1,688 7.0%
18,750 6,563 1.53% 60,000.00 57,116 2,884 30,000.00 28,558 1,442 30,000 28,558 1,442 7.0%
- - - 60,000.00 57,248 2,752 30,000.00 28,624 1,376 30,000 28,624 1,376 6.9%
- - - 60,000.00 57,248 2,752 30,000.00 28,624 1,376 30,000 28,624 1,376 6.8%
- - - 60,000.00 57,248 2,752 30,000.00 28,624 1,376 30,000 28,624 1,376 6.8%
- - - 60,000.00 57,248 2,752 30,000.00 28,624 1,376 30,000 28,624 1,376 6.7%
- - - 60,000.00 57,248 2,752 30,000.00 28,624 1,376 30,000 28,624 1,376 6.7%
- - - 60,000.00 57,248 2,752 30,000.00 28,624 1,376 30,000 28,624 1,376 6.6%
- - - 60,000.00 57,248 2,752 30,000.00 28,624 1,376 30,000 28,624 1,376 6.6%
- - - 60,000.00 57,248 2,752 30,000.00 28,624 1,376 30,000 28,624 1,376 6.6%
- - - 60,000.00 57,248 2,752 30,000.00 28,624 1,376 30,000 28,624 1,376 6.5%
- - - 60,000.00 57,248 2,752 30,000.00 28,624 1,376 30,000 28,624 1,376 6.5%
- - - 60,000.00 57,248 2,752 30,000.00 28,624 1,376 30,000 28,624 1,376 6.5%
- - - 60,000.00 57,248 2,752 30,000.00 28,624 1,376 30,000 28,624 1,376 6.4%
- - - 60,000.00 57,248 2,752 30,000.00 28,624 1,376 30,000 28,624 1,376 6.4%
- - - 60,000.00 57,248 2,752 30,000.00 28,624 1,376 30,000 28,624 1,376 6.4%
- - - 60,000.00 57,248 2,752 30,000.00 28,624 1,376 30,000 28,624 1,376 6.3%
- - - 60,000.00 57,248 2,752 30,000.00 28,624 1,376 30,000 28,624 1,376 6.3%
- - - 60,000.00 57,248 2,752 30,000.00 28,624 1,376 30,000 28,624 1,376 6.3%
- - - 60,000.00 57,248 2,752 30,000.00 28,624 1,376 30,000 28,624 1,376 6.3%
- - - 60,000.00 57,248 2,752 30,000.00 28,624 1,376 30,000 28,624 1,376 6.2%
RDF Anaerobic digestion
Diversion of Municipal Waste from landfill via
ADResidue to compostingCapacity of plant
180
Energy from Waste Part 1
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
150,000 143,121 6,879 103,500 98,753 4,747 - - - - - -
150,000 143,121 6,879 103,500 98,753 4,747 - - - - - -
150,000 143,121 6,879 103,500 98,753 4,747 - - - - - -
150,000 143,121 6,879 103,500 98,753 4,747 - - - - - -
150,000 143,121 6,879 103,500 98,753 4,747 - - - - - -
150,000 143,121 6,879 103,500 98,753 4,747 - - - - - -
150,000 143,121 6,879 103,500 98,753 4,747 - - - - - -
180,000 171,745 8,255 124,200 118,504 5,696 - - - - - -
180,000 171,745 8,255 124,200 118,504 5,696 - - - - - -
180,000 171,745 8,255 124,200 118,504 5,696 - - - - - -
180,000 171,745 8,255 124,200 118,504 5,696 - - - - - -
180,000 171,745 8,255 124,200 118,504 5,696 - - - - - -
180,000 171,745 8,255 124,200 118,504 5,696 - - - - - -
180,000 171,745 8,255 124,200 118,504 5,696 - - - - - -
180,000 171,745 8,255 124,200 118,504 5,696 - - - - - -
180,000 171,745 8,255 124,200 118,504 5,696 - - - - - -
180,000 171,745 8,255 124,200 118,504 5,696 - - - - - -
180,000 171,745 8,255 124,200 118,504 5,696 - - - - - -
180,000 171,745 8,255 124,200 118,504 5,696 - - - - - -
EFW
Throughput of EfW 1Diversion of Municipal Waste from
landfill via EfW 1Throughput of EfW 2
Diversion of Municipal Waste from
landfill via EfW 2
181
Energy from Waste Part 2
Base ash To
landfill
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 141 138 139 140
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Total Municipal
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
42,000 40,074 1,926 21,000 20,037 963 21,000 20,037 963 - - - - - - - - 21,000 21,000 20,037 963.07
42,000 40,074 1,926 21,000 20,037 963 21,000 20,037 963 - - - - - - - - - 21,000 21,000 20,037 963.07
42,000 40,074 1,926 21,000 20,037 963 21,000 20,037 963 - - - - - - - - - 21,000 21,000 20,037 963.07
42,000 40,074 1,926 21,000 20,037 963 21,000 20,037 963 - - - - - - - - - 21,000 21,000 20,037 963.07
42,000 40,074 1,926 21,000 20,037 963 21,000 20,037 963 - - - - - - - - - 21,000 21,000 20,037 963.07
42,000 40,074 1,926 21,000 20,037 963 21,000 20,037 963 - - - - - - - - - 21,000 21,000 20,037 963.07
42,000 40,074 1,926 21,000 20,037 963 21,000 20,037 963 - - - - - - - - - 21,000 21,000 20,037 963.07
50,400 48,089 2,311 25,200 24,044 1,156 25,200 24,044 1,156 - - - - - - - - - 25,200 25,200 24,044 1,155.68
50,400 48,089 2,311 25,200 24,044 1,156 25,200 24,044 1,156 - - - - - - - - - 25,200 25,200 24,044 1,155.68
50,400 48,089 2,311 25,200 24,044 1,156 25,200 24,044 1,156 - - - - - - - - - 25,200 25,200 24,044 1,155.68
50,400 48,089 2,311 25,200 24,044 1,156 25,200 24,044 1,156 - - - - - - - - - 25,200 25,200 24,044 1,155.68
50,400 48,089 2,311 25,200 24,044 1,156 25,200 24,044 1,156 - - - - - - - - - 25,200 25,200 24,044 1,155.68
50,400 48,089 2,311 25,200 24,044 1,156 25,200 24,044 1,156 - - - - - - - - - 25,200 25,200 24,044 1,155.68
50,400 48,089 2,311 25,200 24,044 1,156 25,200 24,044 1,156 - - - - - - - - - 25,200 25,200 24,044 1,155.68
50,400 48,089 2,311 25,200 24,044 1,156 25,200 24,044 1,156 - - - - - - - - - 25,200 25,200 24,044 1,155.68
50,400 48,089 2,311 25,200 24,044 1,156 25,200 24,044 1,156 - - - - - - - - - 25,200 25,200 24,044 1,155.68
50,400 48,089 2,311 25,200 24,044 1,156 25,200 24,044 1,156 - - - - - - - - - 25,200 25,200 24,044 1,155.68
50,400 48,089 2,311 25,200 24,044 1,156 25,200 24,044 1,156 - - - - - - - - - 25,200 25,200 24,044 1,155.68
50,400 48,089 2,311 25,200 24,044 1,156 25,200 24,044 1,156 - - - - - - - - - 25,200 25,200 24,044 1,155.68
EFW 1 Base ash to Beneficial
UseEFW 2 Base ash arising
EFW 2 Base ash to landfill
(INACTIVE WASTE)
EFW 2 Base ash to Beneficial
Use Process waste residues put to
beneficial useEFW 1 Base ash arising
EFW 1 Base ash to landfill
(INACTIVE WASTE)
BASE ASH from EFW
182
Energy from Waste Part 3
Third party
Waste arising
outside of
contract
Third party
Recovered
outside of
contract
Percentage of
Municipal
Waste stream
that is diverted
by Third Party
Percentage of
Municipal (Contract)
Waste stream
recovered by Energy
Recovery
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (Percentage)
142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152
Total Municipal
Waste
Total Municipal
Waste
Total Municipal
Waste
Total Municipal
Waste
Total Municipal
Waste
Total Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract Waste
other than
Household
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract Waste
other than
Household
Waste
Total Municipal
Waste
- - 94,114 45,364 11.5% - - - - - - 0.00%
- - 94,496 45,746 11.4% - - - - - - 0.00%
- - 94,886 46,136 11.3% - - - - - - 0.00%
- - 95,284 46,534 11.2% 60,000 56,608 3,392 30,000 28,304 1,696 7.19%
- - 95,690 46,940 11.0% 60,000 56,623 3,377 30,000 28,312 1,688 7.05%
- - 39,647 27,460 6.4% 60,000 57,116 2,884 30,000 28,558 1,442 6.98%
4,500 - 21,105 21,105 4.9% 210,000 200,369 9,631 133,500 127,378 6,122 30.74%
4,500 - 21,317 21,317 4.9% 210,000 200,369 9,631 133,500 127,378 6,122 30.44%
4,500 - 21,530 21,530 4.9% 210,000 200,369 9,631 133,500 127,378 6,122 30.14%
4,500 - 21,745 21,745 4.9% 210,000 200,369 9,631 133,500 127,378 6,122 29.84%
4,500 - 21,854 21,854 4.9% 210,000 200,369 9,631 133,500 127,378 6,122 29.69%
4,500 - 21,963 21,963 4.9% 210,000 200,369 9,631 133,500 127,378 6,122 29.54%
4,500 - 22,073 22,073 4.9% 210,000 200,369 9,631 133,500 127,378 6,122 29.40%
5,400 - 22,183 22,183 4.9% 240,000 228,994 11,006 154,200 147,128 7,072 35.33%
5,400 - 22,294 22,294 4.9% 240,000 228,993 11,007 154,200 147,128 7,072 35.15%
5,400 - 22,406 22,406 4.9% 240,000 228,993 11,007 154,200 147,128 7,072 34.98%
5,400 - 22,518 22,518 4.9% 240,000 228,993 11,007 154,200 147,128 7,072 34.80%
5,400 - 22,630 22,630 4.9% 240,000 228,994 11,006 154,200 147,128 7,072 34.63%
5,400 - 22,743 22,743 4.9% 240,000 228,994 11,006 154,200 147,128 7,072 34.46%
5,400 - 22,857 22,857 4.9% 240,000 228,993 11,007 154,200 147,128 7,072 34.28%
5,400 - 22,971 22,971 4.9% 240,000 228,994 11,006 154,200 147,128 7,072 34.11%
5,400 - 23,086 23,086 4.9% 240,000 228,994 11,006 154,200 147,128 7,072 33.94%
5,400 - 23,202 23,202 4.9% 240,000 228,993 11,007 154,200 147,128 7,072 33.78%
5,400 - 23,318 23,318 4.9% 240,000 228,993 11,007 154,200 147,128 7,072 33.61%
5,400 - 23,434 23,434 4.9% 240,000 228,994 11,006 154,200 147,128 7,072 33.44%
Fly ash
Fly ash to landfill
(tonnes)
Total throughput of Municipal (Contract) Waste
through Energy Recovery facilities
Diversion of Municipal (Contract) Waste from
landfill via Energy Recovery facilities
Third Party waste
183
Recovery Rate and Landfill Calculations Diversion of
Municipal Waste
from landfill Waste to Landfill
Total percentage
of Municipal
(Contract) Waste
stream
recovered
Diversion of
Municipal Waste
from landfill
Total amount
of Waste going
to landfill out of
county (Horton)
Total
percentage of
Waste being
landfilled out
of county
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (Percentage) (tonnes) (tonnes) (Percentage) (tonnes) (Percentage) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
153 154 155 156 157 158 159 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract Waste
other than
Household
Waste
Third Party
Waste
Total Municipal
Waste
Total Municipal
Waste
Total Municipal
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste
Contract
Household
Waste Active
waste
Contract
Household In
active Waste
Contract
Waste other
than
Household
Waste
Contract Waste
other than
Household Waste
Active waste
Contract Waste
other than
Household Waste
Inacative waste
Total
Municipal
Waste Active
waste
Total
Municipal
Waste
Inacative
waste
39,158 19,758 287 45,364 9.96% 39,158 46,000 12% 48,750 12% 305,363 287,848 287,848 - 17,515 17,515 - 305,363 -
79,238 56,945 2,797 45,746 19.75% 79,238 46,000 11% 48,750 12% 273,149 257,558 257,558 - 15,591 15,591 - 273,149 -
79,843 57,173 2,783 46,136 19.51% 79,843 46,000 11% 48,750 12% 280,567 264,629 264,629 - 15,938 15,938 - 280,567 -
144,060 117,409 6,366 46,534 34.52% 144,060 - - 48,750 12% 224,533 211,837 211,837 - 12,695 12,695 - 224,533 -
144,689 117,662 6,338 46,940 33.99% 144,689 - - 48,750 11% 232,250 219,178 219,178 - 13,072 13,072 - 232,250 -
145,010 118,701 5,412 27,460 33.73% 145,010 - - 12,188 3% 272,748 259,639 259,639 - 13,109 13,109 - 272,748 -
285,857 253,048 11,704 21,105 65.83% 306,857 - - - - 127,389 121,547 101,510 20,037 5,842 4,879 963 106,389 21,000
286,164 253,144 11,704 21,317 65.25% 307,164 - - - - 131,424 125,396 105,360 20,037 6,027 5,064 963 110,424 21,000
286,474 253,240 11,704 21,530 64.67% 307,474 - - - - 135,500 129,286 109,249 20,037 6,214 5,251 963 114,500 21,000
289,354 255,905 11,704 21,745 64.67% 310,354 - - - - 137,050 130,765 110,728 20,037 6,285 5,322 963 116,050 21,000
289,525 255,967 11,704 21,854 64.39% 310,525 - - - - 139,116 132,736 112,699 20,037 6,380 5,417 963 118,116 21,000
289,696 256,029 11,704 21,963 64.11% 310,696 - - - - 141,193 134,718 114,681 20,037 6,475 5,512 963 120,193 21,000
289,869 256,092 11,704 22,073 63.83% 310,869 - - - - 143,280 136,709 116,672 20,037 6,571 5,608 963 122,280 21,000
313,361 278,525 12,653 22,183 71.79% 338,561 - - - - 117,858 112,453 88,409 24,044 5,405 4,249 1,156 92,658 25,200
313,548 278,601 12,653 22,294 71.47% 338,748 - - - - 119,953 114,452 90,408 24,044 5,501 4,345 1,156 94,753 25,200
313,737 278,678 12,653 22,406 71.16% 338,937 - - - - 122,058 116,460 92,416 24,044 5,598 4,442 1,156 96,858 25,200
313,926 278,755 12,653 22,518 70.85% 339,126 - - - - 124,174 118,479 94,435 24,044 5,695 4,539 1,156 98,974 25,200
314,116 278,833 12,653 22,630 70.54% 339,316 - - - - 126,301 120,508 96,464 24,044 5,792 4,637 1,156 101,101 25,200
314,306 278,911 12,653 22,743 70.23% 339,506 - - - - 128,438 122,548 98,503 24,044 5,890 4,735 1,156 103,238 25,200
314,499 278,989 12,653 22,857 69.93% 339,699 - - - - 130,585 124,596 100,552 24,044 5,989 4,833 1,156 105,385 25,200
314,691 279,068 12,653 22,971 69.62% 339,891 - - - - 132,744 126,656 102,612 24,044 6,088 4,932 1,156 107,544 25,200
314,886 279,147 12,653 23,086 69.32% 340,086 - - - - 134,913 128,726 104,681 24,044 6,187 5,031 1,156 109,713 25,200
315,081 279,226 12,653 23,202 69.01% 340,281 - - - - 137,092 130,805 106,761 24,044 6,287 5,131 1,156 111,892 25,200
315,277 279,306 12,653 23,318 68.71% 340,477 - - - - 139,283 132,896 108,851 24,044 6,388 5,232 1,156 114,083 25,200
315,473 279,386 12,653 23,434 68.41% 340,673 - - - - 141,486 134,997 110,953 24,044 6,488.60 5,333 1,156 116,286 25,200
Total amount of Contract Waste going to landfill
Total Recovery rate
Total Municipal (Contract) recovered Third Party Waste to Landfill
184
Void Space Calculations
Percentage of Waste Landfilled
Total void space needed per
annum (m3) to include necessary
inert for engineering
Cumulative total void space needed
(Percentage) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
171 172 173 174 175
Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste
Active wasteTotal Municipal Waste Inacative waste Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste
77.6% 367,907 - 404,697.32 404,697
68.1% 329,095 - 362,004.25 766,702
68.6% 338,032 - 371,835.19 1,138,537
53.8% 270,521 - 297,573.33 1,436,110
54.6% 279,819 - 307,801.12 1,743,911
63.4% 328,612 - 361,473.70 2,105,385
29.3% 128,179 14,000 156,397.02 2,261,782
30.0% 133,040 14,000 161,744.52 2,423,526
30.6% 137,952 14,000 167,146.99 2,590,673
30.6% 139,819 14,000 169,201.21 2,759,875
30.9% 142,308 14,000 171,939.25 2,931,814
31.2% 144,811 14,000 174,691.70 3,106,506
31.5% 147,325 14,000 177,457.31 3,283,963
25.8% 111,637 16,800 141,280.21 3,425,243
26.2% 114,160 16,800 144,056.33 3,569,299
26.5% 116,696 16,800 146,845.74 3,716,145
26.8% 119,245 16,800 149,649.84 3,865,795
27.1% 121,808 16,800 152,468.70 4,018,264
27.4% 124,383 16,800 155,301.07 4,173,565
27.8% 126,970 16,800 158,147.03 4,331,712
28.1% 129,571 16,800 161,007.97 4,492,720
28.4% 132,184 16,800 163,882.64 4,656,602
28.7% 134,810 16,800 166,771.13 4,823,374
29.0% 137,450 16,800 169,674.83 4,993,048
29.3% 140,103 16,800 172,593.81 5,165,642
void space required (m3) per annum
Void Space
185
Appendix 3: The MBM test mass flow diagrams:
The following flow diagrams depict the results from the testing of the MBM for eight different configurations. The explanation is
contained with Section 5.7.2 as well as the Option 1 mass flow diagram.
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
Appendix 4: The MBM USER MANUAL
194
THE DETAILED CONSTRUCTION, CALCULATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS USED IN
DEVELOPING THE NEW MASS BALANCE MODEL (MBM)
It is the aim to construct a walk through manual for anybody that wishes to use this model. The
manual will take each of the six sections and present an overview of that section and then describe
all of the calculations within that section and links to any other section.
For each section description there will be an extract from the model shown as a table that contains
the cells within the excel model for that section, there will be a top row that is made up of letters, this
is the column identification letter. The letter relates to the column label in the excel spreadsheet. In
the left hand column is a series of number, these in a similar way, relate to the identification numbers
of each row, again these are related to the number in the excel spreadsheet.
An example of the first three columns of the model is given below as a guide to explanation;
The example shows the reader that D6 would be the identification code for the cell “year 2001/2”,
when looking at the spreadsheet on the computer; the code would be the same as the table here.
The reader will also notice the use of shading, C-D4 and C-D5 are descriptions that are used within
the model and are shaded to visually separate them from all the other rows; ease of reading. C-D8 is
also shaded, this is a row that is a target year and similarly this is used to visually highlight this row,
there are three such rows in the table, which will be explained later in the chapter.
From this point forward all reference to columns and rows will be by row 4 “Column number” and
column 2 “Row Number”, therefore C4 would actually be read as “Column 1, row 5” or C1 R5. The
reason for this is that when printed the model does not show the lettered columns or the row
numbers, and as such a way of identifying each cell is required for the model once printed, and also
for use in identifying the summary of each equation in each column (where appropriate). The
following will now describe each of the six sections of the model in the order that they are viewed
when opening the model:
Model timescales
A B C D
1 Row Number
2 1 Column heading Financial Year
3 2 Units Years
4 3 Column Number 1
5 4 Summary of equation in column
6 5 Base Year 2001/2
7 6 2002/3
8 7 2003/4
9 8 2004/5
195
Columns 1 and 1a consists entirely of input cells, these cells will be used to identify the year, and the
model currently expresses a financial year and a contract year. These can be quite easily changed to
suit the needs of the user, but each year, whether the base year is 2001/2 or 2022/23 will have to be
manually typed.
The reason for both is really quite simple, by showing the financial year it tells you in real time the
year you will be in, but by showing the contract year it makes identification of that year easier. For
ease of use in the model, the first 6 columns have been frozen, i.e. are permanently on display, so
that when scrolling along the model the user is always aware of what year and what MW and HW
tonnages they are looking reading information from.
Waste and Waste Growth.
The second section of the model looks at the relationship between waste arising and waste growth,
the base year figures for column 2, Household Waste and column 3, Municipal waste is actual data
and is therefore an input cell. The rest of the column is made up of simple equations see paragraph
4.5.4.
Row Number
1 Column heading Financial Year Contract Year
2 Units Years Years
3 Column Number 1 1a
4 Summary of equation in column
5 Base Year 2001/2 0
6 2002/3 1
7 2003/4 2
Row Number
1 Column heading Financial Year Contract Year Waste growth per
year Household
Waste Municipal Waste
2 Units Years Years (Percentage) (tonnes) (tonnes)
3 Column Number 1 1a 1b 2 3
4 Summary of equation
361,507 378,000
5 Base Year 2001/2 0 2.0% 368,737 385,560
6 2002/3 1 2.0% 376,112 393,271
7 2003/4 2 2.0% 383,634 401,137
8 2004/5 3 2.0% 391,307 409,159
196
There is a need to distinguish between HW and MW because in calculating Recycling rates only HW is
used. Essentially Household Waste comprises 90% of the Municipal Waste, but in certain areas, for
example East Sussex and Brighton & Hove this rises to nearer 95%.
A waste growth model is used within the model to calculate the number of tonnes arising of Municipal
and Household waste. The waste for the base year is inputted to cells C2R5 and D2R5 the waste
growth model is cut into column 3 (paste special as a figure) and the equations then calculate the
waste for each year for columns 2 & 3. This calculated in this model and as such would not need to
be modelled elsewhere.
The table below shows firstly in bold, in C2R4, the summary of the equation as shown in the model;
this is then shown as a description related to the column and row numbers for the first year. Row 6
shows what the numerical equation would actually be. Whereas row 7 shows the equation as it
actually is on the model. In the model the rows following 7 use exactly the same equation as in row 7
but with the numbering moving down with each row, e.g. row 8 would use F12 & E13 and row 9
would use F13 & E14. This is achieved in the model by dragging the equation in row 6 (in the model
this is an actual equation) down to the bottom of the table by doing this Excel automatically changes
the numbers.
The user also has the option of manually inputting the data by just typing in each year’s figures. This
is far more time consuming and doesn’t allow for an easy comparison of different waste growth
scenarios.
Row Number
1 Column heading
Contract Year
Waste growth per year
Household Waste Municipal Waste
2 Units Years (Percentage) (tonnes) (tonnes)
3 Column Number
1a 1b 2 3
4 Summary of
equation
= 2+(2*1b)) which for year one =C2R5+(C2R5*C1bR6)
= 3+(3*1b)) which for year one =C3R5+(C3R5*C1bR6)
5 Base Year 0 2.0% 368,737 385,560
6 1 2.0% = 368,737 + (368,737*2.0%) = 385,560+ (385,560*2.0%)
7 2 2.0% =F11+(F11*E12) =G12+(G12*E13)
197
Targets
This section is perhaps one of the most important as it relates to directly what the user wants to
obtain from the model, the targets that are to be set in terms of recycling and recovery. There are
ten columns in this section that all relate to either the targets set by the user or the modelled targets
attained by the assumptions in sizing the facilities and/or the assumptions upon which the facilities
efficiencies are based.
Columns 4,5,7,8,9 and 10 are the results that are calculated in the model; these are therefore
calculated cells and should not be altered. They are directly linked to the summary cells at each of
the three following sections.
Columns 6 and 11 are input columns, these are for the user to set the performance targets that they
wish to achieve and then use columns 5 and 10 to see if the targets set have been met.
There are also two more columns in this section they are; Columns 11a and 11b and they are
calculated in order to summarise and show the total facilities capacity and the actual amount of waste
that is not treated by all the waste management facilities. This latter column 11b, when added to
column 11a might (especially after the implementation of an EfW) be greater than the total MW
arising (column 3). The reason being that each facility has an efficiency rating and for example, MRF’s
are normally 80-85% efficient (Project Integra), meaning there will therefore be a residue; if this
residue is transported to an EfW and burnt it will be used as part of the capacity of that plant and
therefore treated twice. This is not a true reflection on the total amount of waste being treated by all
the facilities, because less waste is actually going through the facilities, as some is double counted.
Row Number
1 Column heading
Household Waste,
Recycling
Household Waste,
Recycling
Household Waste,
Recycling Targets in Contract
Municipal Waste, Energy
Recovery (EFW)
Municipal Waste, Energy
Recovery (EFW)
Municipal Waste, Total
Recovery
Municipal Waste, Total
Recovery
Municipal Waste,
Recovery Targets in Contract
2 Units (tonnes) (Percentage
) (Percentage) (tonnes)
(Percentage)
(tonnes) (Percentage) (Percentage
)
3 Column Number
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
4 Summar
y of equation
(=34) (=4/2) (=47) (=7/3) (=4+7) (=9/3)
5 Base Year
6 1 39,158 10.4% 26,250 6.7% 65,408 16.6%
7 2 76,936 20.1% 20% 26,250 6.5% 103,186 25.7%
8 3 79,843 20.4% 20% 26,250 6.7% 106,093 27.1%
9 4 110,210 27.6% 25% 59,250 14.8% 169,460 42.5% 40%
198
Recycling and composting
The fourth stage of the model is used to calculate the recycling rate needed to be achieved, by using
different recycling methods. As a result this section has been split into four parts:
Material Recycling Facilities (MRFs);
Composting facilities.
Bring Banks;
Household Waste Recycling Sites (HWRS) and;
Each type of recycling has its own characteristics, which have been described on a facility-by-facility
basis in the previous chapter; the following will explain how the waste flows through each of the
facilities.
Material Recycling Facilities (MRFs)
The section consists of 13 columns, eight of which relate to individual facilities, the last five acting as
summary columns. In the table below, an example of a 40,000 tonne per annum (tpa) MRF is given
in column 12, normally a high-tech MRF will enable 85% of the waste delivered to that facility to be
recycled (Juniper 2000, Project Integra). As such the efficiency for a MRF has been set at 85% as
shown in columns 13,15,17& 19. The columns 12, 14, 16 & 18 comprise of input cells and the
throughput capacity of a MRF can be entered into one cell, dragged down to simulate that tonnage
over each year. By looking to the future and predicting that that 40,000 tpa MRF would need to be
increased in capacity in later years is not a problem as the increased capacity can be entered into one
of the lower cells for the specific year.
Row Number
1 Column heading
MRF 1 through put
MRF 1 Diversion of Household Waste stream - 15% residue goes to incinerator
MRF 2 throughput
MRF 2 Diversion of Household Waste stream - 15% residue goes to incinerator
Total MRF throughput
Total diversion of Household Waste from landfill via MRF's
Total residues to EFW from MRF's
Diversion of Household Waste to facilities i.e. throughput of MRFs
Diversion of dry recyclables from landfill through MRF's
2 Units (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (Percentage) (Percentage)
3 Column Number
12 13 14 15 20 21 22 23 24
4 Summary of equation (efficiency
85% 85% (=12+14+ 16+18)
(=13+15+ 17+19)
(=20-21) (=20/2) (=21/2)
5 Base Year
6 1 - - - - - - - 0.0%
7 2 40,000 34,000 - - 40,000 34,000 - 10.4% 8.9%
8 3 40,000 34,000 - - 40,000 34,000 - 10.2% 8.7%
9 4 40,000 34,000 15,000 12,750 55,000 46,750 - 13.8% 11.7%
199
Columns 13,15, 17 & 19 (17& 19 are not shown above) as described earlier used an 85%
assumption, this 85% is an input cell that relates to all the cells below and the preceding column,
thus, in the example given, cell C12R7 indicates a MRF with a capacity of 40,000tpa, the cell C13R7
then uses the calculation:
C12R7*$C13$R4 (note the $ in equation mean fixed column id and row id),
i.e., 40,000 * 85% = 34,000tpa.
In the model the actual equation for C13R7 is =V10*$W$7
In the model there are a maximum of four possible MRFs, each has the ability to have a different
efficiency, or to not be used at all. The author has chosen to use four small sized MRFs for this
model, two of which are not shown in the above table for ease of reading.
Columns 20 indicates the total capacity of the MRFs, this is a simple calculation that adds the total
capacity for each MRF (columns 12+14+16+18). This resultant number indicates the total throughput
of the MRFs. Column 21 indicates the total amount of recycling undertaken by the total capacity of
the MRFs by, again a simple equation, adding the columns 13+15+17+19 together.
Column 22 shows whether any the residues from the MRFs are delivered to the EFW. An assumption
has been made that when an EFW is operational, all residue from the MRFs will be delivered to the
EFW. In the model this is undertaken by using a complex “IF” equation;
=IF ($BP10+$BR10=0,0,AF10-AG10) where:
BP10 has the column title: Throughput of EfW 1;
BR10 has the column title: Throughput of EfW 2;
AF10 has the column title: Total MRF throughput; and
AG10 has the column title: Total diversion of Household Waste from landfill via MRF's
There is therefore a possibility of two different answers, one of zero, if there is no operational EFW,
or two, the sum of the residues from the MRFs. There could be a case to add in another variable, for
example, if the EFW capacity were smaller than the total of the residues from the MRFs. If this were
the case, the following equation could replace the current equation (it is the authors view that this
scenario would be very rare and as such will use the equation in Para 4.7.2.9):
=IF($BP10+$BR10=0,0,IF($BP10+$BR10=>(AF10-AG10),(AF10-AG10)),IF($BP10+$BR10<(AF10-
AG10), ($BP10+$BR10)) where:
200
BP10 has the column title: Throughput of EfW 1;
BR10 has the column title: Throughput of EfW 2;
AF10 has the column title: Total MRF throughput; and
AG10 has the column title: Total diversion of Household Waste from landfill via MRF's
The new equation effectively asks three questions and give three possible answers,
part one, sees if the EFW is operational, if it isn’t then a zero will be placed in the cell,
part two sees if the capacity of the EFW is equal to or greater than the sum of the residues from the
MRF, if the answer is yes, the sum of the residues from the MRF is inputted into the cell, and
part three sees if the capacity of the EFW is less than the sum of the residues from the MRF, if this
were the case, the total capacity of the EFWs would be inputted into the cell.
Column 23 consists of calculation cells that indicate the percentage of the HW that is delivered to the
MRFs, a simple equation, the sum of column 20 divided by column 2 (total HW arising). Column 24
consists again of calculation cells, this column show the contribution towards the recycling rate made
by the MRFs, the equation is the sum of column 21 divided by column 2 (total HW arising).
Composting facilities
Composting has been identified in chapter 3 of being of various technologies, enclosed, open and on
farm. In the model the author has chosen to use the example of both an enclosed compost facility
and an on-farm facility. This reflects current legislation; in that green waste collected form
households should be composted in an enclosed facility, whereas green waste from HWRS can be
composted in open-air facilities. The composting section of the model is made up of 4 columns; the
first two columns are for the facilities, column 27 for the enclosed composter and 28 for the on-farm
facilities.
Row Number
1 Column heading Enclosed Composter On-farm
Total diversion of Household Waste from landfill through composters
Percentage of Household Waste diverted by composting
2 Units (tonnes) (Percentage) (tonnes) (Percentage)
3 Column Number 27 28 29 30
4 Summary of equation (efficiency)
95% (=27+28) (=29/2)
5 Base Year
6 1 5,000 5,000 1.3%
7 2 15,000 15,000 3.9%
8 3 25,650 5,000 30,650 7.8%
9 4 25,650 5,000 30,650 7.7%
201
The Enclosed Composter is 95% efficient, as such there needs to be an equation to calculate this,
column 27 uses the efficiency rate that should be hard typed by the user into cell C27R4. This
efficiency rate is then used in the calculation of cell C27R8;
=(27000*$AL$7) which equals 25,650 as shown in C27R8
The above equation has two variables, the first being the size of the composter, in the case of this
example this has been set as 27,000tpa, if the user wishes to change this then it is simple to just
change the number in cell C27R8 and then drag to the bottom of the column. The second variable is
the efficiency, as described in paragraph 4.7.3.3 this can be changed in cell C27R4 (in the equation
$AL$7 relates to C27R4 in the model.
Column 28 is a simple hard type column where the user inputs the size of on-farm capacity to be
used, in the above example the capacity varies between 5,000tpa and 15,000tpa, this is to take
account for a greater need of composting in year 3 when recycling targets are higher and before the
enclosed composter is built.
The purpose of column 29 is to show the combined capacity of the composting facilities, the equation
is just a simple addition of columns 27 & 28. Column 29 then, in a similar manner to the MRF, works
out the contribution made by the combined capacity of the composters to the recycling rate. This is
achieved by dividing column 29 by column 2. The above example shows that with a composting
production of 30,650tpa in year 4, the contribution to achieving the 30% recycling rate is 7.7%
Bring Banks
There are two types of bring banks currently in operation within the area, these are banks operated
by the WCAs at dedicated sites around their individual areas, and banks placed in Household waste
recycling sites (HWRS's) by the WDA.
Column 31 shows the banks provided by the WCAs; in the example above the tonnage collected in
the base year is the actual collected, while year one is the tonnage expected after a growth of 4%,
Row Number
1 Column heading Household Waste diverted by use of bring banks
HWRS Bring banks Percentage of Household Waste stream that is diverted by Bring banks
2 Units (tonnes) (tonnes) (Percentage)
3 Column Number 31 31a 32
4 Summary of equation (efficiency)
(=31/2)
5 Base Year 14,749 3,798 5.03%
6 1 15,044 3,874 5.03%
7 2 15,044 4,604 5.12%
8 3 3,913 4,696 2.20%
9 4 3,991 7,184 2.80%
202
this is higher than the actual growth rate of waste for the reason that WCAs would have to increase
recycling activities at a greater rate than waste growth to achieve higher recycling targets. It is the
author’s opinion that a 4% increase may look like a small increase, but the physical aspects of
actually setting up new bring sites would be prohibitive in increasing this to a higher increase.
Years 2 onwards shows a much lower figure for bring recycling than for either the base year or year
1, mainly because a substantial amount of bring bank collected waste would be delivered to the MRF
instead of directly to market (as is currently the case). It is the authors view that a small percentage
of bring bank material will still go direct to market and the prudent view is made in the calculation of
cell C31R7 that 1% of the total HW arising will be bring banks delivered material direct to market.
This is shown by equation extracted from the model below;
` =F11*0.01, where F11 is the total HW arising.
As can be seen from the above paragraph, an assumption has been made by the author about the
recycling activities under taken by the WCAs in utilising bring banks to achieve recycling targets, in
the same way, the performance levels of the bring bank recycling have been estimated.
Aside from this model, the author has used a complex model to determine the recycling levels that
would be required at the HWRSs to achieve the recycling rates for the whole area, once the WCAs
have achieved their individual recycling targets. This model need not be in this report, suffice to say
that its results have been used to calculate the percentage required for bring bank recycling.
There have been four different percentages used to calculate the recycling undertaken by WDA bring
banks, these are;
Years 2 & 3 2% of the 20% HWRS recycling rate per annum
Years 4 – 6 2% of the 30% HWRS recycling rate per annum
Years 7 – 13 2% of the 40% HWRS recycling rate per annum
Years 14 onwards 2% of the 50% HWRS recycling rate per annum
Table XX Bring banks assumptions
The table shows that the percentage rate of the recycling level for the bring banks stays the same,
but that the total recycling rate increases, as the recycling rate as a whole for the HWRS increases,
the tonnage of recycled material collected by the bring banks also increases. This can be seen in
column 31a.
The equation that is used in column C31aR7 is the following;
= (123,356 *0.2)*0.2
203
Whereas the equation in C31aR9 is;
= (125,835 *0.3)*0.2
This reflects paragraph 4.7.4.8 with the overall recycling rate increasing from 0.2 to 0.3.
The amount of material collected by the bring banks will also increase due to the increase in waste
arising at the HWRS, this may be a high level assumption that as waste grows, the amount of
recycling achieved by one particular method increases proportionally.
The summary column (column 32) for this section is, again, a simple addition equation, adding the
sum of columns 31 & 31a, the difference between previous summary columns is that total capacity
tonnage is not shown and the equation perform a two part role, firstly adding the totals and then
dividing by the total amount of HW to get the contribution made by bring banks to the overall
recycling rate. This is done for cell C32R7 by the following equation:]
= (AQ11+AR11)/F11 where:
AQ11 is column 31 (Household Waste recycled by WCA bring banks),
AR11 is column 31a (HWRS Bring banks), and
F11 is column 2 (total HW arising)
The equation is replicated in the rest of the column
Third party recycling
The concept of third party recycling is not an unusual one in the arena of councils, normally the
recycling is undertaken by charities, for example OXFAM, the Salvation Army and the Scout
Association, but there is another concept of third party recycling that can occur. For example, in
Brighton the community recycling group MAGPIE collect recyclables, for the each tonne they collect
and recycle, they receive a recycling credit, as described in chapters 1 & 2.
The assumption made is that all third party recycling is waste that has been recycled by some body
other than the WDA, which the WDA authorises and then pays recycling credits to.
In the case of this model, the author has added another variable, the case of the WCA delivering
waste direct to market under their own scheme and as such that waste not becoming part of the
contract waste. For example, if within the ESCC area, Wealden WCA decided to take all the recycling
that was collected by them by way of kerbside and bring bank schemes and delivered direct to
market, they would then receive a recycling credit for that tonnage.
204
The author has used the above example as the contribution to the third party waste, therefore by
using Wealden DC’s target of 33% recycling there is a substantial amount of third party waste arising
that is recycled.
The section on third party waste only contains 2 columns, with column 32a being the total third party
recycling, the use could add further columns to break down the total into constituent parts, the
author is only using the Wealden data and as such, for this example, will only use one column, adding
other will also complicate the column numbering system.
Row Number
1 Column heading Third party recycling Percentage of Household Waste stream that is diverted by Third Party
2 Units (tonnes) (Percentage)
3 Column Number 32a 32b
4 Summary of equation (efficiency)
(=32a/2)
5 Base Year
6 1 19,114 5.08%
7 2 19,496 5.08%
8 3 19,886 5.08%
9 4 20,284 5.08%
The above table shows that Wealden DC diverting its recyclable material away from the facilities
within the model means that a recycling rate of just over 5% is achieved. If this were to occur in an
operational situation would be classed as non-contract waste.
The equation for C32aR6 is a based upon a separate model that calculates the predicted waste
arisings for Wealden DC in that particular year, this model uses the same waste growth figures as
given in paragraph 4.5.6.2, it is assumed that waste growth will be even overall of the area. In reality
this probably will not be the case and as such it will vary according to numerous different reasons
including House building, economics and waste minimisation activities.
Recycling rate
The recycling rate section is the culmination of all of the previous sections within the Recycling and
Composting section. The purpose is to summarise the total amount of recycling achieved and then
calculate the recycling rate.
This achieved by using two columns; one which is an addition cell, adding all of the summary totals
from the previous section and, two, the calculated recycling rate.
205
Row Number
1 Column heading Diversion of Waste from
landfill via recycling Household Waste stream
recycled
2 Units (tonnes) (Percentage)
3 Column Number 33 34
4 Summary of equation
(efficiency) (=21+29+31+31a+32a) (=33/2)
5 Base Year
6 1 43,032 11.4%
7 2 88,144 23.0%
8 3 93,145 23.8%
9 4 108,860 27.3%
The equation in C33R4 shows there are six variables contributing to the total recycling rate, where;
Column 21 is the Total diversion of Household Waste from landfill via MRF's,
Column 29 is the Total diversion of Household Waste from landfill through composters,
Column 31 is the Household Waste recycled by WCA bring banks,
Column 31a is the HWRS Bring banks,
Column 32a is the Third party recycling, and
Column 36a is the Recycling undertaken at the RDF plant (see section 4.8)
The total of these six columns gives the predicted recycling achieved with the B & HCC and ESCC
area for that particular year.
This total recycled tonnage is then divided by the total household waste arising; in column 2, and the
subsequent percentage is the predicted recycling rate for that year. The model takes this percentage
and automatically replicates it in column 5; it can then be compared by the user to column 6 to see if
the recycling target for that year has been achieved.
If the recycling rate in column 5 is not what is required, the user should look at ways of increasing,
or decreasing the capacities and or deemed assumptions to gain the desired levels.
The author has taken the view in the model that each facility should have a fixed capacity from the
outset that can only be increased, therefore if a recycling rate of 33% is required in year 25, the
facility should be large enough to recycle that tonnage from the date of the move up to that target, in
the case of this example that would be year 14 when the target went from 30% to 33%. This means
that in the years preceding year 25 the recycling rate will be higher than 33% (unless there is a
decrease in waste arsing).
It is also acknowledged that a simple yes/no column could be developed to indicate in what years the
targets are achieved. This can be for the future.
206
Section 5 Energy Recovery
The section in the model relating to energy recovery is probably one of the most contentious issues in
the model, not in terms of the way the model works, but in terms of public perception, this has been
discussed in chapter 4 and as such need not be elaborated further here.
There are three commercially proven types of Energy Recovery (excluding landfill gas reclamation,
which does not contribute towards Recovery Targets [Guidance on municipal waste management
strategies]) Refuse Derived Fuel production, Anaerobic Digestion, and Energy from Waste
(Incineration). The latter being the most controversial.
Refuse Derived Fuel production (RDF)
ESCC currently has an operational RDF plant in the east of the county, if the user were looking at
another county or area, this may not be one of the favoured technologies, as it is seen in some
quarters as being outdated, and too inefficient to be useful in achieving recovery targets.
The section of the model dedicated to RDF is four columns, RDF is a relatively simple process in that
waste is shredded post delivery & metals are extracted by an eddy current and overband separator.
The plant currently recycles approximately 2,000 tpa of metals. The remaining waste is then
processed through the RDF plant to produce pellets; in this part of process there is vapour loss and
the production of a small amount of electricity.
Row Number
1 Column heading Capacity of plant Energy recovery by
RDF Metal recycling by
RDF Percentage of Municipal Waste
Energy Recovery by RDF
2 Units (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (Percentage)
3 Column Number 35 36 36a 37
4 Summary of equation
(efficiency) 32.05% 1.997% (=36/3)
5 Base Year 75,000 26,250 6.94%
6 1 75,000 24,039 1,498 6.11%
7 2 75,000 24,039 1,498 5.99%
8 3 75,000 24,039 1,498 5.88%
9 4 75,000 24,039 1,498 5.76%
In the model, column 35 is the input column where the user hard types the capacity of the plant. In
this example, the author has used to capacity off the current ESCC RDF plant.
Column 36 is the calculation column for the energy recovery; cell C36R4 is the efficiency of the plant.
This again, is from the current performance of the plant and is used in column 36 in the equation:
=BG10*BH$7 where:
BG10 is column 35; and
BH$7 is efficiency of the plant (32.05%)
207
The calculation of the metals recycled by the plant is made in column 36a, in the same way as for
column 36. The main difference is the efficiency, or to be accurate, the calculation of the tonnes
recycled, in the case of the metals it is 1.997% as indicated in C36aR4. The equation is the same as
for column 36
The final column of the section is the percentage, by the RDF process, towards the Energy recovery
target. This is slightly different to the calculation of the Recycling Target because up to 2015/16 the
Recovery target is measured against the Municipal waste a\risings, after that time it is measured
against the Household waste arisings [A way with Waste 1998]. In the case of RDF the facility is due
to close in 2007/8 [ESCC], and as such will not be affected by the change to HW later in the time
frame, but the recovery that it does contribute has to be calculated against the MW arisings.
In calculating the recovery rate the following calculation is used:
=BH10/G10 where:
BH10 is the total of column 36; and
G10 is the total MW arising.
The recovery rate that the RDF plant contributes is between 6.11% and 1.4%
Anaerobic Digestion (AD)
The AD plant is one that can vary a great deal in its efficiency; it is entirely dependant on the input to
the facility. If a good quality feed stock is used the production of recyclable material and energy will
be high, if a mixed MSW fraction is used the resultant biodegraded product will be sufficient only for
landfill cover and non-compost uses [composting association]
In the case of this model, the author has chosen to use a mixed MSW fraction for the input, reflecting
the current situation that hardly any of the area has separate green garden, wood or food collection.
The size of the plant to make it economically viable is such that there would not be enough
biodegradable waste separated from the household stream using current projections (see chapter 5)
The extract from the model above shows that there are 3 efficiencies that need to be looked at, these
have been explained in chapter 3, but for the model they use exactly the same equation:
=BL13*BM$7 where
BL13 is the capacity of the plant (C37a); and
BM$7 is the efficiency, in the case of the above equation this relates to C37b (this part of the
equation will also relate to C37c & C37d.)
208
Once these different fractions of the waste have been calculated a further calculation is required to
show what is going directly to landfill, this is shown in C37e. The equation is a simplistic (=C37a-
(C37b +C37c+C37d)). The total of this equation can be used to calculate the total diversion from
landfill, column C37f (C37e/C37a), this is required because by looking at C37g the user will see that
the calculated energy recovery is very low. Whereas the facility is good at diverting waste from
landfill, which is the one of the main pressures facing councils.
Energy from Waste (EFW)
The EFW section of the model is very similar to that of the AD, the main difference being the
efficiencies. In the case of the EFW, the recovery of energy is very high at 67%, where recycling is
possible this normally accounts for 2% of the inputs, the remainder is base ash 28% (which can
reused or put to beneficial use) and fly ash (3%), which has to be disposed of in special waste landfill
sites. The exert from the model below shows the cells required for one EFW, in the model this section
is repeated so that two EFWs’ can be used if required.
The exert uses very similar equations to those in the AD section, in this example the author has used
an EFW of the size 100,000tpa, this enable all of the columns preceding it to be understandable in
relation to the efficiencies. Once the calculations have been made for each of the EFWs’ there is a
summary section, this is replicated below and shows that some of the base ash is used for beneficial
use and some is sent direct to landfill. The percentage split on this would be dependent upon market
conditions at the time of operation. The author has used a 60:40 split to show the difference in
tonnages.
Row Number
Column heading Throughput of
EfW 1
Diversion of Municipal Waste from landfill via
EfW 1
Metal put to beneficial use
Total Base ash arising
Fly ash arising
1 Units (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
2 Column Number 38 39 39a 39b 39c
3 Summary of equation
(efficiency) 69% 2% 26% 3%
12 7 100,000 69,000 2,000 26,000 3,000
13 8 100,000 69,000 2,000 26,000 3,000
14 9 100,000 69,000 2,000 26,000 3,000
15 10 100,000 69,000 2,000 26,000 3,000
Row Number
1 Column heading
Total Throughput
of EFWs
Total diversion of Waste from
landfill via EFWs
Total Metal put to
beneficial use
Total Base ash arising
Base ash put to Beneficial
use
Base ash sent to landfill
Fly ash arising
Energy Recovery by
EFW
2 Units (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (Percentage)
3 Column Number
42 42a 42 43 43a 43b 43c 44
4 Summary of
equation (efficiency)
(=38 + 40) (=39 + 41) (=39a + 41a) (=39b +
41b) 60% 40%
(=39c + 41c)
(=42/3)
17 12 100,000 69,000 2,000 28,000 16,800 11,200 3,000 15.27%
18 13 100,000 69,000 2,000 28,000 16,800 11,200 3,000 15.19%
19 14 165,000 113,200 3,300 46,200 27,720 18,480 4,950 24.80%
20 15 165,000 113,200 3,300 46,200 27,720 18,480 4,950 24.68%
209
The above extract shows the years 12 –15, with year 14 being a target year. The author has used the
model to show what might happen if two facilities were to be provided at different times, this would
be a scenario that might occur to enable a council to move from the 45% target to the 67% target.
The user can see that as a result of the second facility, the energy recovery by the EFW jumps from
15% to 25%, a very significant increase.
Summary of Energy Recovery
The three previous sections have shown how the energy recovery is achieved under this particular
solution, the model has three columns that firstly calculate the total capacity of all the energy
recovery facilities, and secondly the total energy recovery achieved by all of the facilities.
The energy recovery facilities, over the twenty five year period, contribute between 6.11% recovery
at its lowest in 2002/3 and 35.98% at its highest in 2015/16. When these figures are combined with
the performance figures from the recycling section, a total Recovery rate can be calculated.
Calculation of the Recovery Rate
The recovery rate is calculated by adding the total recycled materials (column 33) and the total
energy recovered (column 43) and dividing by either the total Household waste arising (column 3) or
the Total Municipal waste arising (Column 4) (The principal in terms of which to calculate against is
the same as that for energy recovery).
Row Number
1 Column heading Total Municipal (Contract) recovered Total percentage of Municipal
(Contract) Waste stream recovered
2 Units (tonnes) (Percentage)
3 Column Number 48 49
4 Summary of equation
(efficiency) (=33+46) (=48/3 or 4)
5 Base Year
6 1 68,569 17.44%
7 2 113,681 28.34%
8 3 118,682 29.01%
9 4 150,547 36.07%
The results of this column are transferred to column 10, where a comparison of the estimated
Recovery Rate and the Target Recovery Rate can be made.
If the Recovery Rate in column 10 is not what is required, the user should look at ways of increasing,
or decreasing the capacities and or deemed assumptions to gain the desired levels.
Section 6 Beneficial Use and diversion from landfill
210
The beneficial use and diversion from landfill section is a small section (columns 50-52) that
calculates the total amount of waste diverted away from landfill. This is calculated by adding the total
number of tonnes Recovered to the amount of waste put to beneficial use from the AD and EFW
facilities.
The total beneficial use is calculated in column 51, where amount of waste put to beneficial use from
the AD and EFW facilities is added together
The equation in column 51 then adds that tonnage to that as a result of column 48 to give a cell
value that is a useful guide to the total impact of the solution in that year; i.e. the total diversion from
landfill.
There are no targets for diverting waste from landfill, but the more that is achieved the less reliant
councils need be on an ever diminishing disposal route.
Section 7 Landfill
The section on landfill is really a summary of all that is left within the waste stream; it is also a check
to make sure all the number add up. There are seven columns starting with C53, which is a
calculation of the total number of tonnes of waste requiring landfill (including special waste from the
EFW). This is a very simple calculation, total MW minus C51 (total diversion from landfill).
The total percentage of the MW arising requiring landfill is an indication of the progress made in
diverting away from landfill. This is the reverse equation of C52, and again, is useful for visual aid
more than anything else.
Row Number
1 Column heading
Total Landfill capacity required
Percentage of Waste Landfilled
Void space required (m3) per annum
Total void space needed per
annum (m3) to include necessary
inert for engineering
Cumulative total void
space needed
Void identified within area and
subsequently used also showing shortfall
of void within area
Safety Check
2 Units (tonnes) (Percentage) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
3 Column Number
53 54 55 56 57 58 59
4 Summary
of equation (efficiency)
(=53/3) (=53/0.83) (=55*1.1) (=56+55) (58-57)
5 Base Year 1,900,000
6 1 324,702 82.6% 391,207 430,328 430,328 1,469,672 OK
7 2 287,455 71.7% 346,332 380,965 811,292 1,088,708 OK
8 3 290,477 71.0% 349,973 384,970 1,196,262 703,738 OK
9 4 181,346 43.5% 218,489 240,338 1,436,600 463,400 OK
211
Once the total number of tonnes requiring landfill has been identified, the total landfill void required
for the waste needs to be calculated. This is done by two different calculations, firstly by calculating
the density off MW and secondly, calculating the void required for engineering works, to then give an
overall void capacity for the waste.
212
Appendix 5: RS1 Calculations sheet formulas
The following 21 sheets are a screen shot of the equations written to enable the MBM to work
213
RS1 formulas for Calculation sheet
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
='Summary sheet'!AX8+1 =C7+1 =D7+1 =E7+1 =F7+1 =G7+1
Financial
Year
Cont
ract
Year
Total Municipal Waste
throughputContract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste
2002/3 1 ='Input sheet'!D11 =C11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =C11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10) =C11*$F$10 =F11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =F11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10)
2003/4 2 ='Input sheet'!D12 =C12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =C12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =C12*$F$10 =F12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =F12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11)
2004/5 3 ='Input sheet'!D13 =C13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =C13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =C13*$F$10 =F13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =F13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12)
2005/6 4 ='Input sheet'!D14 =C14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =C14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =C14*$F$10 =F14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =F14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13)
2006/7 5 ='Input sheet'!D15 =C15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =C15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =C15*$F$10 =F15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =F15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14)
2007/8 6 ='Input sheet'!D16 =C16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =C16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =C16*$F$10 =F16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =F16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15)
2008/9 7 ='Input sheet'!D17 =C17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =C17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =C17*$F$10 =F17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =F17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16)
2009/10 8 ='Input sheet'!D18 =C18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =C18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =C18*$F$10 =F18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =F18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17)
2010/11 9 ='Input sheet'!D19 =C19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =C19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =C19*$F$10 =F19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =F19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18)
2011/12 10 ='Input sheet'!D20 =C20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =C20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =C20*$F$10 =F20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =F20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19)
2012/13 11 ='Input sheet'!D21 =C21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =C21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =C21*$F$10 =F21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =F21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20)
2013/14 12 ='Input sheet'!D22 =C22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =C22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =C22*$F$10 =F22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =F22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21)
2014/15 13 ='Input sheet'!D23 =C23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =C23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =C23*$F$10 =F23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =F23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22)
2015/16 14 ='Input sheet'!D24 =C24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =C24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =C24*$F$10 =F24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =F24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23)
2016/17 15 ='Input sheet'!D25 =C25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =C25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =C25*$F$10 =F25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =F25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24)
2017/18 16 ='Input sheet'!D26 =C26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =C26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =C26*$F$10 =F26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =F26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25)
2018/19 17 ='Input sheet'!D27 =C27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =C27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =C27*$F$10 =F27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =F27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26)
2019/20 18 ='Input sheet'!D28 =C28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =C28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =C28*$F$10 =F28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =F28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27)
2020/21 19 ='Input sheet'!D29 =C29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =C29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =C29*$F$10 =F29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =F29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28)
2021/22 20 ='Input sheet'!D30 =C30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =C30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =C30*$F$10 =F30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =F30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29)
2022/23 21 ='Input sheet'!D31 =C31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =C31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =C31*$F$10 =F31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =F31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30)
2023/24 22 ='Input sheet'!D32 =C32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =C32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =C32*$F$10 =F32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =F32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31)
2024/25 23 ='Input sheet'!D33 =C33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =C33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =C33*$F$10 =F33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =F33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32)
2025/26 24 ='Input sheet'!D34 =C34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =C34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =C34*$F$10 =F34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =F34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33)
2026/27 25 ='Input sheet'!D35 =C35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =C35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =C35*$F$10 =F35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =F35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34)
Type of Year
MRF 1 throughput MRF 1 Diversion of Household Waste stream
214
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
=H7+1 =I7+1 =J7+1 =K7+1 =L7+1 =M7+1
Total Municipal Waste throughput Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste
='Input sheet'!E11 =I11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =I11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10) =I11*$L$10 =L11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =L11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10)
='Input sheet'!E12 =I12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =I12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =I12*$L$10 =L12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =L12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11)
='Input sheet'!E13 =I13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =I13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =I13*$L$10 =L13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =L13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12)
='Input sheet'!E14 =I14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =I14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =I14*$L$10 =L14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =L14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13)
='Input sheet'!E15 =I15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =I15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =I15*$L$10 =L15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =L15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14)
='Input sheet'!E16 =I16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =I16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =I16*$L$10 =L16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =L16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15)
='Input sheet'!E17 =I17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =I17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =I17*$L$10 =L17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =L17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16)
='Input sheet'!E18 =I18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =I18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =I18*$L$10 =L18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =L18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17)
='Input sheet'!E19 =I19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =I19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =I19*$L$10 =L19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =L19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18)
='Input sheet'!E20 =I20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =I20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =I20*$L$10 =L20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =L20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19)
='Input sheet'!E21 =I21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =I21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =I21*$L$10 =L21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =L21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20)
='Input sheet'!E22 =I22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =I22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =I22*$L$10 =L22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =L22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21)
='Input sheet'!E23 =I23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =I23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =I23*$L$10 =L23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =L23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22)
='Input sheet'!E24 =I24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =I24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =I24*$L$10 =L24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =L24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23)
='Input sheet'!E25 =I25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =I25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =I25*$L$10 =L25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =L25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24)
='Input sheet'!E26 =I26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =I26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =I26*$L$10 =L26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =L26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25)
='Input sheet'!E27 =I27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =I27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =I27*$L$10 =L27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =L27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26)
='Input sheet'!E28 =I28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =I28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =I28*$L$10 =L28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =L28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27)
='Input sheet'!E29 =I29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =I29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =I29*$L$10 =L29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =L29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28)
='Input sheet'!E30 =I30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =I30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =I30*$L$10 =L30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =L30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29)
='Input sheet'!E31 =I31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =I31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =I31*$L$10 =L31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =L31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30)
='Input sheet'!E32 =I32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =I32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =I32*$L$10 =L32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =L32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31)
='Input sheet'!E33 =I33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =I33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =I33*$L$10 =L33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =L33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32)
='Input sheet'!E34 =I34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =I34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =I34*$L$10 =L34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =L34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33)
='Input sheet'!E35 =I35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =I35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =I35*$L$10 =L35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =L35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34)
MRF 2 throughput MRF 2 Diversion of Household Waste stream
215
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
=N7+1 =O7+1 =P7+1 =Q7+1 =R7+1 =S7+1
Total Municipal Waste throughput Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste
='Input sheet'!F11 =O11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =O11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10) =O11*$R$10 =R11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =R11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10)
='Input sheet'!F12 =O12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =O12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =O12*$R$10 =R12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =R12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11)
='Input sheet'!F13 =O13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =O13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =O13*$R$10 =R13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =R13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12)
='Input sheet'!F14 =O14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =O14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =O14*$R$10 =R14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =R14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13)
='Input sheet'!F15 =O15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =O15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =O15*$R$10 =R15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =R15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14)
='Input sheet'!F16 =O16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =O16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =O16*$R$10 =R16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =R16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15)
='Input sheet'!F17 =O17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =O17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =O17*$R$10 =R17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =R17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16)
='Input sheet'!F18 =O18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =O18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =O18*$R$10 =R18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =R18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17)
='Input sheet'!F19 =O19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =O19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =O19*$R$10 =R19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =R19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18)
='Input sheet'!F20 =O20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =O20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =O20*$R$10 =R20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =R20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19)
='Input sheet'!F21 =O21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =O21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =O21*$R$10 =R21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =R21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20)
='Input sheet'!F22 =O22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =O22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =O22*$R$10 =R22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =R22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21)
='Input sheet'!F23 =O23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =O23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =O23*$R$10 =R23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =R23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22)
='Input sheet'!F24 =O24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =O24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =O24*$R$10 =R24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =R24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23)
='Input sheet'!F25 =O25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =O25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =O25*$R$10 =R25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =R25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24)
='Input sheet'!F26 =O26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =O26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =O26*$R$10 =R26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =R26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25)
='Input sheet'!F27 =O27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =O27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =O27*$R$10 =R27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =R27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26)
='Input sheet'!F28 =O28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =O28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =O28*$R$10 =R28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =R28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27)
='Input sheet'!F29 =O29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =O29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =O29*$R$10 =R29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =R29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28)
='Input sheet'!F30 =O30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =O30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =O30*$R$10 =R30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =R30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29)
='Input sheet'!F31 =O31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =O31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =O31*$R$10 =R31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =R31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30)
='Input sheet'!F32 =O32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =O32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =O32*$R$10 =R32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =R32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31)
='Input sheet'!F33 =O33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =O33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =O33*$R$10 =R33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =R33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32)
='Input sheet'!F34 =O34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =O34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =O34*$R$10 =R34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =R34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33)
='Input sheet'!F35 =O35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =O35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =O35*$R$10 =R35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =R35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34)
MRF 3 Diversion of Household Waste stream MRF3 throughput
216
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
=T7+1 =U7+1 =V7+1 =W7+1 =X7+1 =Y7+1
Total Municipal Waste throughput Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste
='Input sheet'!G11 =U11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =U11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10) =U11*$X$10 =X11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =X11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10)
='Input sheet'!G12 =U12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =U12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =U12*$X$10 =X12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =X12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11)
='Input sheet'!G13 =U13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =U13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =U13*$X$10 =X13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =X13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12)
='Input sheet'!G14 =U14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =U14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =U14*$X$10 =X14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =X14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13)
='Input sheet'!G15 =U15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =U15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =U15*$X$10 =X15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =X15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14)
='Input sheet'!G16 =U16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =U16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =U16*$X$10 =X16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =X16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15)
='Input sheet'!G17 =U17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =U17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =U17*$X$10 =X17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =X17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16)
='Input sheet'!G18 =U18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =U18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =U18*$X$10 =X18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =X18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17)
='Input sheet'!G19 =U19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =U19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =U19*$X$10 =X19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =X19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18)
='Input sheet'!G20 =U20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =U20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =U20*$X$10 =X20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =X20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19)
='Input sheet'!G21 =U21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =U21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =U21*$X$10 =X21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =X21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20)
='Input sheet'!G22 =U22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =U22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =U22*$X$10 =X22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =X22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21)
='Input sheet'!G23 =U23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =U23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =U23*$X$10 =X23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =X23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22)
='Input sheet'!G24 =U24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =U24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =U24*$X$10 =X24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =X24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23)
='Input sheet'!G25 =U25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =U25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =U25*$X$10 =X25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =X25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24)
='Input sheet'!G26 =U26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =U26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =U26*$X$10 =X26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =X26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25)
='Input sheet'!G27 =U27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =U27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =U27*$X$10 =X27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =X27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26)
='Input sheet'!G28 =U28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =U28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =U28*$X$10 =X28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =X28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27)
='Input sheet'!G29 =U29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =U29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =U29*$X$10 =X29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =X29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28)
='Input sheet'!G30 =U30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =U30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =U30*$X$10 =X30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =X30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29)
='Input sheet'!G31 =U31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =U31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =U31*$X$10 =X31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =X31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30)
='Input sheet'!G32 =U32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =U32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =U32*$X$10 =X32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =X32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31)
='Input sheet'!G33 =U33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =U33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =U33*$X$10 =X33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =X33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32)
='Input sheet'!G34 =U34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =U34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =U34*$X$10 =X34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =X34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33)
='Input sheet'!G35 =U35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =U35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =U35*$X$10 =X35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =X35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34)
MRF4 throughput MRF 4 Diversion of Household Waste stream
217
Total MRF throughput
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
=Z7+1 =AA7+1 =AB7+1 =AC7+1 =AD7+1 =AE7+1 =AF7+1
Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other
than Household Waste Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste
=C11+I11+O11+U11 =F11+L11+R11+X11 =G11+M11+S11+Y11 =H11+N11+T11+Z11 =IF($CA11=0,0,AA11-AB11) =AE11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =AE11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$F10)
=C12+I12+O12+U12 =F12+L12+R12+X12 =G12+M12+S12+Y12 =H12+N12+T12+Z12 =IF($CA12=0,0,AA12-AB12) =AE12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$F11) =AE12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$F11)
=C13+I13+O13+U13 =F13+L13+R13+X13 =G13+M13+S13+Y13 =H13+N13+T13+Z13 =IF($CA13=0,0,AA13-AB13) =AE13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$F12) =AE13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$F12)
=C14+I14+O14+U14 =F14+L14+R14+X14 =G14+M14+S14+Y14 =H14+N14+T14+Z14 =IF($CA14=0,0,AA14-AB14) =AE14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$F13) =AE14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$F13)
=C15+I15+O15+U15 =F15+L15+R15+X15 =G15+M15+S15+Y15 =H15+N15+T15+Z15 =IF($CA15=0,0,AA15-AB15) =AE15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$F14) =AE15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$F14)
=C16+I16+O16+U16 =F16+L16+R16+X16 =G16+M16+S16+Y16 =H16+N16+T16+Z16 =IF($CA16=0,0,AA16-AB16) =AE16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$F15) =AE16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$F15)
=C17+I17+O17+U17 =F17+L17+R17+X17 =G17+M17+S17+Y17 =H17+N17+T17+Z17 =IF($CA17+CG17=0,0,AA17-AB17) =AE17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$F16) =AE17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$F16)
=C18+I18+O18+U18 =F18+L18+R18+X18 =G18+M18+S18+Y18 =H18+N18+T18+Z18 =IF($CA18+CG18=0,0,AA18-AB18) =AE18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$F17) =AE18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$F17)
=C19+I19+O19+U19 =F19+L19+R19+X19 =G19+M19+S19+Y19 =H19+N19+T19+Z19 =IF($CA19+CG19=0,0,AA19-AB19) =AE19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$F18) =AE19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$F18)
=C20+I20+O20+U20 =F20+L20+R20+X20 =G20+M20+S20+Y20 =H20+N20+T20+Z20 =IF($CA20+CG20=0,0,AA20-AB20) =AE20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$F19) =AE20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$F19)
=C21+I21+O21+U21 =F21+L21+R21+X21 =G21+M21+S21+Y21 =H21+N21+T21+Z21 =IF($CA21+CG21=0,0,AA21-AB21) =AE21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$F20) =AE21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$F20)
=C22+I22+O22+U22 =F22+L22+R22+X22 =G22+M22+S22+Y22 =H22+N22+T22+Z22 =IF($CA22+CG22=0,0,AA22-AB22) =AE22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$F21) =AE22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$F21)
=C23+I23+O23+U23 =F23+L23+R23+X23 =G23+M23+S23+Y23 =H23+N23+T23+Z23 =IF($CA23+CG23=0,0,AA23-AB23) =AE23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$F22) =AE23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$F22)
=C24+I24+O24+U24 =F24+L24+R24+X24 =G24+M24+S24+Y24 =H24+N24+T24+Z24 =IF($CA24+CG24=0,0,AA24-AB24) =AE24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$F23) =AE24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$F23)
=C25+I25+O25+U25 =F25+L25+R25+X25 =G25+M25+S25+Y25 =H25+N25+T25+Z25 =IF($CA25+CG25=0,0,AA25-AB25) =AE25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$F24) =AE25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$F24)
=C26+I26+O26+U26 =F26+L26+R26+X26 =G26+M26+S26+Y26 =H26+N26+T26+Z26 =IF($CA26+CG26=0,0,AA26-AB26) =AE26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$F25) =AE26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$F25)
=C27+I27+O27+U27 =F27+L27+R27+X27 =G27+M27+S27+Y27 =H27+N27+T27+Z27 =IF($CA27+CG27=0,0,AA27-AB27) =AE27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$F26) =AE27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$F26)
=C28+I28+O28+U28 =F28+L28+R28+X28 =G28+M28+S28+Y28 =H28+N28+T28+Z28 =IF($CA28+CG28=0,0,AA28-AB28) =AE28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$F27) =AE28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$F27)
=C29+I29+O29+U29 =F29+L29+R29+X29 =G29+M29+S29+Y29 =H29+N29+T29+Z29 =IF($CA29+CG29=0,0,AA29-AB29) =AE29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$F28) =AE29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$F28)
=C30+I30+O30+U30 =F30+L30+R30+X30 =G30+M30+S30+Y30 =H30+N30+T30+Z30 =IF($CA30+CG30=0,0,AA30-AB30) =AE30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$F29) =AE30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$F29)
=C31+I31+O31+U31 =F31+L31+R31+X31 =G31+M31+S31+Y31 =H31+N31+T31+Z31 =IF($CA31+CG31=0,0,AA31-AB31) =AE31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$F30) =AE31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$F30)
=C32+I32+O32+U32 =F32+L32+R32+X32 =G32+M32+S32+Y32 =H32+N32+T32+Z32 =IF($CA32+CG32=0,0,AA32-AB32) =AE32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$F31) =AE32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$F31)
=C33+I33+O33+U33 =F33+L33+R33+X33 =G33+M33+S33+Y33 =H33+N33+T33+Z33 =IF($CA33+CG33=0,0,AA33-AB33) =AE33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$F32) =AE33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$F32)
=C34+I34+O34+U34 =F34+L34+R34+X34 =G34+M34+S34+Y34 =H34+N34+T34+Z34 =IF($CA34+CG34=0,0,AA34-AB34) =AE34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$F33) =AE34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$F33)
=C35+I35+O35+U35 =F35+L35+R35+X35 =G35+M35+S35+Y35 =H35+N35+T35+Z35 =IF($CA35+CG35=0,0,AA35-AB35) =AE35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$F34) =AE35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$F34)
Total diversion of Household Waste from landfill via MRF's Total residues to EFW from MRF's
218
Composters
Diversion of Household
Waste to facilities i.e.
throughput of MRFs
Diversion of dry recyclables
from landfill through MRF's
(Percentage) (Percentage) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
=AG7+1 =AH7+1 =AI7+1 =AK7+1 =AL7+1
Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste
=AA11/'Summary sheet'!H10 =AB11/'Summary sheet'!H10 =(IF('Input sheet'!J11=0,'Input sheet'!L11,IF('Input sheet'!J11>0,'Input sheet'!J11)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$L10) =AK11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10)
=AA12/'Summary sheet'!H11 =AB12/'Summary sheet'!H11 =(IF('Input sheet'!J12=0,'Input sheet'!L12,IF('Input sheet'!J12>0,'Input sheet'!J12)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =AK12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11)
=AA13/'Summary sheet'!H12 =AB13/'Summary sheet'!H12 =(IF('Input sheet'!J13=0,'Input sheet'!L13,IF('Input sheet'!J13>0,'Input sheet'!J13)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =AK13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12)
=AA14/'Summary sheet'!H13 =AB14/'Summary sheet'!H13 =(IF('Input sheet'!J14=0,'Input sheet'!L14,IF('Input sheet'!J14>0,'Input sheet'!J14)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =AK14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13)
=AA15/'Summary sheet'!H14 =AB15/'Summary sheet'!H14 =(IF('Input sheet'!J15=0,'Input sheet'!L15,IF('Input sheet'!J15>0,'Input sheet'!J15)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =AK15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14)
=AA16/'Summary sheet'!H15 =AB16/'Summary sheet'!H15 =(IF('Input sheet'!J16=0,'Input sheet'!L16,IF('Input sheet'!J16>0,'Input sheet'!J16)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =AK16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15)
=AA17/'Summary sheet'!H16 =AB17/'Summary sheet'!H16 =(IF('Input sheet'!J17=0,'Input sheet'!L17,IF('Input sheet'!J17>0,'Input sheet'!J17)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =AK17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16)
=AA18/'Summary sheet'!H17 =AB18/'Summary sheet'!H17 =(IF('Input sheet'!J18=0,'Input sheet'!L18,IF('Input sheet'!J18>0,'Input sheet'!J18)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =AK18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17)
=AA19/'Summary sheet'!H18 =AB19/'Summary sheet'!H18 =(IF('Input sheet'!J19=0,'Input sheet'!L19,IF('Input sheet'!J19>0,'Input sheet'!J19)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =AK19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18)
=AA20/'Summary sheet'!H19 =AB20/'Summary sheet'!H19 =(IF('Input sheet'!J20=0,'Input sheet'!L20,IF('Input sheet'!J20>0,'Input sheet'!J20)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =AK20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19)
=AA21/'Summary sheet'!H20 =AB21/'Summary sheet'!H20 =(IF('Input sheet'!J21=0,'Input sheet'!L21,IF('Input sheet'!J21>0,'Input sheet'!J21)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =AK21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20)
=AA22/'Summary sheet'!H21 =AB22/'Summary sheet'!H21 =(IF('Input sheet'!J22=0,'Input sheet'!L22,IF('Input sheet'!J22>0,'Input sheet'!J22)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =AK22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21)
=AA23/'Summary sheet'!H22 =AB23/'Summary sheet'!H22 =(IF('Input sheet'!J23=0,'Input sheet'!L23,IF('Input sheet'!J23>0,'Input sheet'!J23)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =AK23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22)
=AA24/'Summary sheet'!H23 =AB24/'Summary sheet'!H23 =(IF('Input sheet'!J24=0,'Input sheet'!L24,IF('Input sheet'!J24>0,'Input sheet'!J24)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =AK24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23)
=AA25/'Summary sheet'!H24 =AB25/'Summary sheet'!H24 =(IF('Input sheet'!J25=0,'Input sheet'!L25,IF('Input sheet'!J25>0,'Input sheet'!J25)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =AK25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24)
=AA26/'Summary sheet'!H25 =AB26/'Summary sheet'!H25 =(IF('Input sheet'!J26=0,'Input sheet'!L26,IF('Input sheet'!J26>0,'Input sheet'!J26)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =AK26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25)
=AA27/'Summary sheet'!H26 =AB27/'Summary sheet'!H26 =(IF('Input sheet'!J27=0,'Input sheet'!L27,IF('Input sheet'!J27>0,'Input sheet'!J27)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =AK27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26)
=AA28/'Summary sheet'!H27 =AB28/'Summary sheet'!H27 =(IF('Input sheet'!J28=0,'Input sheet'!L28,IF('Input sheet'!J28>0,'Input sheet'!J28)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =AK28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27)
=AA29/'Summary sheet'!H28 =AB29/'Summary sheet'!H28 =(IF('Input sheet'!J29=0,'Input sheet'!L29,IF('Input sheet'!J29>0,'Input sheet'!J29)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =AK29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28)
=AA30/'Summary sheet'!H29 =AB30/'Summary sheet'!H29 =(IF('Input sheet'!J30=0,'Input sheet'!L30,IF('Input sheet'!J30>0,'Input sheet'!J30)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =AK30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29)
=AA31/'Summary sheet'!H30 =AB31/'Summary sheet'!H30 =(IF('Input sheet'!J31=0,'Input sheet'!L31,IF('Input sheet'!J31>0,'Input sheet'!J31)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =AK31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30)
=AA32/'Summary sheet'!H31 =AB32/'Summary sheet'!H31 =(IF('Input sheet'!J32=0,'Input sheet'!L32,IF('Input sheet'!J32>0,'Input sheet'!J32)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =AK32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31)
=AA33/'Summary sheet'!H32 =AB33/'Summary sheet'!H32 =(IF('Input sheet'!J33=0,'Input sheet'!L33,IF('Input sheet'!J33>0,'Input sheet'!J33)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =AK33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32)
=AA34/'Summary sheet'!H33 =AB34/'Summary sheet'!H33 =(IF('Input sheet'!J34=0,'Input sheet'!L34,IF('Input sheet'!J34>0,'Input sheet'!J34)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =AK34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33)
=AA35/'Summary sheet'!H34 =AB35/'Summary sheet'!H34 =(IF('Input sheet'!J35=0,'Input sheet'!L35,IF('Input sheet'!J35>0,'Input sheet'!J35)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$J$5=0,'Input sheet'!L$5,IF('Input sheet'!$J$5>0,'Input sheet'!$J$5))) =AK35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =AK35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34)
Composter 1 throughput from AD plant when operational
219
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
=AM7+1 =AN7+1 =AO7+1
Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste
=(IF('Input sheet'!K11=0,'Input sheet'!M11,IF('Input sheet'!K11>0,'Input sheet'!K11)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$L10) =AN11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K12=0,'Input sheet'!M12,IF('Input sheet'!K12>0,'Input sheet'!K12)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =AN12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K13=0,'Input sheet'!M13,IF('Input sheet'!K13>0,'Input sheet'!K13)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =AN13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K14=0,'Input sheet'!M14,IF('Input sheet'!K14>0,'Input sheet'!K14)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =AN14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K15=0,'Input sheet'!M15,IF('Input sheet'!K15>0,'Input sheet'!K15)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =AN15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K16=0,'Input sheet'!M16,IF('Input sheet'!K16>0,'Input sheet'!K16)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =AN16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K17=0,'Input sheet'!M17,IF('Input sheet'!K17>0,'Input sheet'!K17)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =AN17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K18=0,'Input sheet'!M18,IF('Input sheet'!K18>0,'Input sheet'!K18)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =AN18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K19=0,'Input sheet'!M19,IF('Input sheet'!K19>0,'Input sheet'!K19)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =AN19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K20=0,'Input sheet'!M20,IF('Input sheet'!K20>0,'Input sheet'!K20)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =AN20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K21=0,'Input sheet'!M21,IF('Input sheet'!K21>0,'Input sheet'!K21)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =AN21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K22=0,'Input sheet'!M22,IF('Input sheet'!K22>0,'Input sheet'!K22)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =AN22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K23=0,'Input sheet'!M23,IF('Input sheet'!K23>0,'Input sheet'!K23)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =AN23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K24=0,'Input sheet'!M24,IF('Input sheet'!K24>0,'Input sheet'!K24)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =AN24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K25=0,'Input sheet'!M25,IF('Input sheet'!K25>0,'Input sheet'!K25)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =AN25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K26=0,'Input sheet'!M26,IF('Input sheet'!K26>0,'Input sheet'!K26)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =AN26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K27=0,'Input sheet'!M27,IF('Input sheet'!K27>0,'Input sheet'!K27)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =AN27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K28=0,'Input sheet'!M28,IF('Input sheet'!K28>0,'Input sheet'!K28)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =AN28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K29=0,'Input sheet'!M29,IF('Input sheet'!K29>0,'Input sheet'!K29)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =AN29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K30=0,'Input sheet'!M30,IF('Input sheet'!K30>0,'Input sheet'!K30)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =AN30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K31=0,'Input sheet'!M31,IF('Input sheet'!K31>0,'Input sheet'!K31)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =AN31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K32=0,'Input sheet'!M32,IF('Input sheet'!K32>0,'Input sheet'!K32)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =AN32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K33=0,'Input sheet'!M33,IF('Input sheet'!K33>0,'Input sheet'!K33)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =AN33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K34=0,'Input sheet'!M34,IF('Input sheet'!K34>0,'Input sheet'!K34)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =AN34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33)
=(IF('Input sheet'!K35=0,'Input sheet'!M35,IF('Input sheet'!K35>0,'Input sheet'!K35)))*(IF('Input sheet'!$K$5=0,'Input sheet'!M$5,IF('Input sheet'!$K$5>0,'Input sheet'!$K$5))) =AN35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =AN35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34)
Composter 2 throughput from AD plant when operational
220
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
=AP7+1 =AQ7+1 =AR7+1 =AS7+1 =AT7+1 =AU7+1
Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than
Household Waste
='Input sheet'!H11*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$L10) =AQ11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10) =AK11+AN11+AQ11 =AL11+AO11+AR11 =AM11+AP11+AS11
='Input sheet'!H12*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =AQ12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =AK12+AN12+AQ12 =AL12+AO12+AR12 =AM12+AP12+AS12
='Input sheet'!H13*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =AQ13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =AK13+AN13+AQ13 =AL13+AO13+AR13 =AM13+AP13+AS13
='Input sheet'!H14*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =AQ14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =AK14+AN14+AQ14 =AL14+AO14+AR14 =AM14+AP14+AS14
='Input sheet'!H15*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =AQ15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =AK15+AN15+AQ15 =AL15+AO15+AR15 =AM15+AP15+AS15
='Input sheet'!H16*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =AQ16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =AK16+AN16+AQ16 =AL16+AO16+AR16 =AM16+AP16+AS16
='Input sheet'!H17*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =AQ17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =AK17+AN17+AQ17 =AL17+AO17+AR17 =AM17+AP17+AS17
='Input sheet'!H18*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =AQ18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =AK18+AN18+AQ18 =AL18+AO18+AR18 =AM18+AP18+AS18
='Input sheet'!H19*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =AQ19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =AK19+AN19+AQ19 =AL19+AO19+AR19 =AM19+AP19+AS19
='Input sheet'!H20*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =AQ20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =AK20+AN20+AQ20 =AL20+AO20+AR20 =AM20+AP20+AS20
='Input sheet'!H21*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =AQ21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =AK21+AN21+AQ21 =AL21+AO21+AR21 =AM21+AP21+AS21
='Input sheet'!H22*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =AQ22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =AK22+AN22+AQ22 =AL22+AO22+AR22 =AM22+AP22+AS22
='Input sheet'!H23*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =AQ23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =AK23+AN23+AQ23 =AL23+AO23+AR23 =AM23+AP23+AS23
='Input sheet'!H24*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =AQ24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =AK24+AN24+AQ24 =AL24+AO24+AR24 =AM24+AP24+AS24
='Input sheet'!H25*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =AQ25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =AK25+AN25+AQ25 =AL25+AO25+AR25 =AM25+AP25+AS25
='Input sheet'!H26*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =AQ26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =AK26+AN26+AQ26 =AL26+AO26+AR26 =AM26+AP26+AS26
='Input sheet'!H27*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =AQ27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =AK27+AN27+AQ27 =AL27+AO27+AR27 =AM27+AP27+AS27
='Input sheet'!H28*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =AQ28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =AK28+AN28+AQ28 =AL28+AO28+AR28 =AM28+AP28+AS28
='Input sheet'!H29*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =AQ29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =AK29+AN29+AQ29 =AL29+AO29+AR29 =AM29+AP29+AS29
='Input sheet'!H30*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =AQ30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =AK30+AN30+AQ30 =AL30+AO30+AR30 =AM30+AP30+AS30
='Input sheet'!H31*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =AQ31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =AK31+AN31+AQ31 =AL31+AO31+AR31 =AM31+AP31+AS31
='Input sheet'!H32*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =AQ32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =AK32+AN32+AQ32 =AL32+AO32+AR32 =AM32+AP32+AS32
='Input sheet'!H33*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =AQ33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =AK33+AN33+AQ33 =AL33+AO33+AR33 =AM33+AP33+AS33
='Input sheet'!H34*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =AQ34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =AK34+AN34+AQ34 =AL34+AO34+AR34 =AM34+AP34+AS34
='Input sheet'!H35*'Reference model Formulas'!$AQ$10 =AQ35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =AQ35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =AK35+AN35+AQ35 =AL35+AO35+AR35 =AM35+AP35+AS35
On-farm Total diversion of Household Waste from landfill through composters
221
Percentage of Household Waste
diverted by composting
Household Waste
diverted by use of bring
banks
HWS Bring banksPercentage of Household Waste
stream that is diverted by Bring banks
Third party recycling outside
of contract
Percentage of Household Waste
stream that is diverted by Third Party
(Percentage) (tonnes) (tonnes) (Percentage) (tonnes) (Percentage) (tonnes)
=AV7+1 =AW7+1 =AY7+1 =AZ7+1 =BA7+1 =BC7+1 =BD7+1 =BF7+1 =BG7+1 =BH7+1
Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Third Party Waste Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than
Household Waste Third Party Waste
=AT11/'Summary sheet'!H10 ='Input sheet'!P11 ='Input sheet'!Q11 =(AY11+AZ11)/'Summary sheet'!H10 ='Input sheet'!N11 =BC11/'Summary sheet'!H10 =BI11+BH11+BG11 =AU11+AC11+AY11+AZ11 =AV11+AD11 =BC11
=AT12/'Summary sheet'!H11 ='Input sheet'!P12 ='Input sheet'!Q12 =(AY12+AZ12)/'Summary sheet'!H11 ='Input sheet'!N12 =BC12/'Summary sheet'!H11 =BI12+BH12+BG12 =AU12+AC12+AY12+AZ12 =AV12+AD12 =BC12
=AT13/'Summary sheet'!H12 ='Input sheet'!P13 ='Input sheet'!Q13 =(AY13+AZ13)/'Summary sheet'!H12 ='Input sheet'!N13 =BC13/'Summary sheet'!H12 =BI13+BH13+BG13 =AU13+AC13+AY13+AZ13 =AV13+AD13 =BC13
=AT14/'Summary sheet'!H13 ='Input sheet'!P14 ='Input sheet'!Q14 =(AY14+AZ14)/'Summary sheet'!H13 ='Input sheet'!N14 =BC14/'Summary sheet'!H13 =BI14+BH14+BG14 =AU14+AC14+AY14+AZ14 =AV14+AD14 =BC14
=AT15/'Summary sheet'!H14 ='Input sheet'!P15 ='Input sheet'!Q15 =(AY15+AZ15)/'Summary sheet'!H14 ='Input sheet'!N15 =BC15/'Summary sheet'!H14 =BI15+BH15+BG15 =AU15+AC15+AY15+AZ15 =AV15+AD15 =BC15
=AT16/'Summary sheet'!H15 ='Input sheet'!P16 ='Input sheet'!Q16 =(AY16+AZ16)/'Summary sheet'!H15 ='Input sheet'!N16 =BC16/'Summary sheet'!H15 =BI16+BH16+BG16 =AU16+AC16+AY16+AZ16 =AV16+AD16 =BC16
=AT17/'Summary sheet'!H16 ='Input sheet'!P17 ='Input sheet'!Q17 =(AY17+AZ17)/'Summary sheet'!H16 ='Input sheet'!N17 =BC17/'Summary sheet'!H16 =BI17+BH17+BG17 =AU17+AC17+AY17+AZ17 =AV17+AD17 =BC17
=AT18/'Summary sheet'!H17 ='Input sheet'!P18 ='Input sheet'!Q18 =(AY18+AZ18)/'Summary sheet'!H17 ='Input sheet'!N18 =BC18/'Summary sheet'!H17 =BI18+BH18+BG18 =AU18+AC18+AY18+AZ18 =AV18+AD18 =BC18
=AT19/'Summary sheet'!H18 ='Input sheet'!P19 ='Input sheet'!Q19 =(AY19+AZ19)/'Summary sheet'!H18 ='Input sheet'!N19 =BC19/'Summary sheet'!H18 =BI19+BH19+BG19 =AU19+AC19+AY19+AZ19 =AV19+AD19 =BC19
=AT20/'Summary sheet'!H19 ='Input sheet'!P20 ='Input sheet'!Q20 =(AY20+AZ20)/'Summary sheet'!H19 ='Input sheet'!N20 =BC20/'Summary sheet'!H19 =BI20+BH20+BG20 =AU20+AC20+AY20+AZ20 =AV20+AD20 =BC20
=AT21/'Summary sheet'!H20 ='Input sheet'!P21 ='Input sheet'!Q21 =(AY21+AZ21)/'Summary sheet'!H20 ='Input sheet'!N21 =BC21/'Summary sheet'!H20 =BI21+BH21+BG21 =AU21+AC21+AY21+AZ21 =AV21+AD21 =BC21
=AT22/'Summary sheet'!H21 ='Input sheet'!P22 ='Input sheet'!Q22 =(AY22+AZ22)/'Summary sheet'!H21 ='Input sheet'!N22 =BC22/'Summary sheet'!H21 =BI22+BH22+BG22 =AU22+AC22+AY22+AZ22 =AV22+AD22 =BC22
=AT23/'Summary sheet'!H22 ='Input sheet'!P23 ='Input sheet'!Q23 =(AY23+AZ23)/'Summary sheet'!H22 ='Input sheet'!N23 =BC23/'Summary sheet'!H22 =BI23+BH23+BG23 =AU23+AC23+AY23+AZ23 =AV23+AD23 =BC23
=AT24/'Summary sheet'!H23 ='Input sheet'!P24 ='Input sheet'!Q24 =(AY24+AZ24)/'Summary sheet'!H23 ='Input sheet'!N24 =BC24/'Summary sheet'!H23 =AT24+AB24+AY24+AZ24+BC24=AU24+AC24+AY24+AZ24 =AV24+AD24 =BC24
=AT25/'Summary sheet'!H24 ='Input sheet'!P25 ='Input sheet'!Q25 =(AY25+AZ25)/'Summary sheet'!H24 ='Input sheet'!N25 =BC25/'Summary sheet'!H24 =AT25+AB25+AY25+AZ25+BC25=AU25+AC25+AY25+AZ25 =AV25+AD25 =BC25
=AT26/'Summary sheet'!H25 ='Input sheet'!P26 ='Input sheet'!Q26 =(AY26+AZ26)/'Summary sheet'!H25 ='Input sheet'!N26 =BC26/'Summary sheet'!H25 =AT26+AB26+AY26+AZ26+BC26=AU26+AC26+AY26+AZ26 =AV26+AD26 =BC26
=AT27/'Summary sheet'!H26 ='Input sheet'!P27 ='Input sheet'!Q27 =(AY27+AZ27)/'Summary sheet'!H26 ='Input sheet'!N27 =BC27/'Summary sheet'!H26 =AT27+AB27+AY27+AZ27+BC27=AU27+AC27+AY27+AZ27 =AV27+AD27 =BC27
=AT28/'Summary sheet'!H27 ='Input sheet'!P28 ='Input sheet'!Q28 =(AY28+AZ28)/'Summary sheet'!H27 ='Input sheet'!N28 =BC28/'Summary sheet'!H27 =AT28+AB28+AY28+AZ28+BC28=AU28+AC28+AY28+AZ28 =AV28+AD28 =BC28
=AT29/'Summary sheet'!H28 ='Input sheet'!P29 ='Input sheet'!Q29 =(AY29+AZ29)/'Summary sheet'!H28 ='Input sheet'!N29 =BC29/'Summary sheet'!H28 =AT29+AB29+AY29+AZ29+BC29=AU29+AC29+AY29+AZ29 =AV29+AD29 =BC29
=AT30/'Summary sheet'!H29 ='Input sheet'!P30 ='Input sheet'!Q30 =(AY30+AZ30)/'Summary sheet'!H29 ='Input sheet'!N30 =BC30/'Summary sheet'!H29 =AT30+AB30+AY30+AZ30+BC30=AU30+AC30+AY30+AZ30 =AV30+AD30 =BC30
=AT31/'Summary sheet'!H30 ='Input sheet'!P31 ='Input sheet'!Q31 =(AY31+AZ31)/'Summary sheet'!H30 ='Input sheet'!N31 =BC31/'Summary sheet'!H30 =AT31+AB31+AY31+AZ31+BC31=AU31+AC31+AY31+AZ31 =AV31+AD31 =BC31
=AT32/'Summary sheet'!H31 ='Input sheet'!P32 ='Input sheet'!Q32 =(AY32+AZ32)/'Summary sheet'!H31 ='Input sheet'!N32 =BC32/'Summary sheet'!H31 =AT32+AB32+AY32+AZ32+BC32=AU32+AC32+AY32+AZ32 =AV32+AD32 =BC32
=AT33/'Summary sheet'!H32 ='Input sheet'!P33 ='Input sheet'!Q33 =(AY33+AZ33)/'Summary sheet'!H32 ='Input sheet'!N33 =BC33/'Summary sheet'!H32 =AT33+AB33+AY33+AZ33+BC33=AU33+AC33+AY33+AZ33 =AV33+AD33 =BC33
=AT34/'Summary sheet'!H33 ='Input sheet'!P34 ='Input sheet'!Q34 =(AY34+AZ34)/'Summary sheet'!H33 ='Input sheet'!N34 =BC34/'Summary sheet'!H33 =AT34+AB34+AY34+AZ34+BC34=AU34+AC34+AY34+AZ34 =AV34+AD34 =BC34
=AT35/'Summary sheet'!H34 ='Input sheet'!P35 ='Input sheet'!Q35 =(AY35+AZ35)/'Summary sheet'!H34 ='Input sheet'!N35 =BC35/'Summary sheet'!H34 =AT35+AB35+AY35+AZ35+BC35=AU35+AC35+AY35+AZ35 =AV35+AD35 =BC35
Diversion of Waste from landfill via recycling
222
RDF Anaerobic digestion
Household Waste stream recycled Capacity of plantDiversion of Municipal
Waste from landfill via RDF
Percentage of Municipal
Waste recovery by RDF
(Percentage) (tonnes) (tonnes) (Percentage) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
=BI7+1 =BJ7+1 =BL7+1 =BM7+1 =BN7+1 =BP7+1 =BQ7+1
Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste
=BF11/'Summary sheet'!H10 ='Input sheet'!O11 =BL11*'Input sheet'!$O$5 =BM11/'Summary sheet'!F10 ='Input sheet'!I11 =BP11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =BP11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10)
=BF12/'Summary sheet'!H11 ='Input sheet'!O12 =BL12*'Input sheet'!$O$5 =BM12/'Summary sheet'!F11 ='Input sheet'!I12 =BP12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =BP12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11)
=BF13/'Summary sheet'!H12 ='Input sheet'!O13 =BL13*'Input sheet'!$O$5 =BM13/'Summary sheet'!F12 ='Input sheet'!I13 =BP13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =BP13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12)
=BF14/'Summary sheet'!H13 ='Input sheet'!O14 =BL14*'Input sheet'!$O$5 =BM14/'Summary sheet'!F13 ='Input sheet'!I14 =BP14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =BP14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13)
=BF15/'Summary sheet'!H14 ='Input sheet'!O15 =BL15*'Input sheet'!$O$5 =BM15/'Summary sheet'!F14 ='Input sheet'!I15 =BP15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =BP15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14)
=BF16/'Summary sheet'!H15 ='Input sheet'!O16 =BL16*'Input sheet'!$O$5 =BM16/'Summary sheet'!F15 ='Input sheet'!I16 =BP16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =BP16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15)
=BF17/'Summary sheet'!H16 ='Input sheet'!O17 0 0 ='Input sheet'!I17 =BP17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =BP17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16)
=BF18/'Summary sheet'!H17 ='Input sheet'!O18 0 0 ='Input sheet'!I18 =BP18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =BP18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17)
=BF19/'Summary sheet'!H18 ='Input sheet'!O19 0 0 ='Input sheet'!I19 =BP19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =BP19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18)
=BF20/'Summary sheet'!H19 ='Input sheet'!O20 0 0 ='Input sheet'!I20 =BP20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =BP20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19)
=BF21/'Summary sheet'!H20 ='Input sheet'!O21 0 0 ='Input sheet'!I21 =BP21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =BP21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20)
=BF22/'Summary sheet'!H21 ='Input sheet'!O22 0 0 ='Input sheet'!I22 =BP22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =BP22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21)
=BF23/'Summary sheet'!H22 ='Input sheet'!O23 0 0 ='Input sheet'!I23 =BP23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =BP23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22)
=BF24/'Summary sheet'!H23 ='Input sheet'!O24 0 0 ='Input sheet'!I24 =BP24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =BP24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23)
=BF25/'Summary sheet'!H24 ='Input sheet'!O25 0 0 ='Input sheet'!I25 =BP25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =BP25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24)
=BF26/'Summary sheet'!H25 ='Input sheet'!O26 0 0 ='Input sheet'!I26 =BP26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =BP26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25)
=BF27/'Summary sheet'!H26 ='Input sheet'!O27 0 0 ='Input sheet'!I27 =BP27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =BP27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26)
=BF28/'Summary sheet'!H27 ='Input sheet'!O28 0 0 ='Input sheet'!I28 =BP28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =BP28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27)
=BF29/'Summary sheet'!H28 ='Input sheet'!O29 0 0 ='Input sheet'!I29 =BP29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =BP29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28)
=BF30/'Summary sheet'!H29 ='Input sheet'!O30 0 0 ='Input sheet'!I30 =BP30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =BP30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29)
=BF31/'Summary sheet'!H30 ='Input sheet'!O31 0 0 ='Input sheet'!I31 =BP31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =BP31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30)
=BF32/'Summary sheet'!H31 ='Input sheet'!O32 0 0 ='Input sheet'!I32 =BP32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =BP32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31)
=BF33/'Summary sheet'!H32 ='Input sheet'!O33 0 0 ='Input sheet'!I33 =BP33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =BP33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32)
=BF34/'Summary sheet'!H33 ='Input sheet'!O34 0 0 ='Input sheet'!I34 =BP34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =BP34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33)
=BF35/'Summary sheet'!H34 ='Input sheet'!O35 0 0 ='Input sheet'!I35 =BP35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =BP35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34)
Capacity of plant
223
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
=BR7+1 =BS7+1 =BT7+1 =BU7+1 =BV7+1 =BW7+1
Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste
=BP11*$BS$10 =BS11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =BS11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10) =BP11-BS11 =BV11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =BV11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10)
=BP12*$BS$10 =BS12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =BS12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =BP12-BS12 =BV12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =BV12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11)
=BP13*$BS$10 =BS13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =BS13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =BP13-BS13 =BV13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =BV13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12)
=BP14*$BS$10 =BS14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =BS14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =BP14-BS14 =BV14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =BV14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13)
=BP15*$BS$10 =BS15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =BS15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =BP15-BS15 =BV15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =BV15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14)
=BP16*$BS$10 =BS16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =BS16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =BP16-BS16 =BV16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =BV16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15)
=BP17*$BS$10 =BS17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =BS17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =BP17-BS17 =BV17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =BV17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16)
=BP18*$BS$10 =BS18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =BS18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =BP18-BS18 =BV18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =BV18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17)
=BP19*$BS$10 =BS19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =BS19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =BP19-BS19 =BV19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =BV19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18)
=BP20*$BS$10 =BS20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =BS20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =BP20-BS20 =BV20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =BV20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19)
=BP21*$BS$10 =BS21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =BS21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =BP21-BS21 =BV21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =BV21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20)
=BP22*$BS$10 =BS22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =BS22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =BP22-BS22 =BV22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =BV22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21)
=BP23*$BS$10 =BS23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =BS23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =BP23-BS23 =BV23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =BV23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22)
=BP24*$BS$10 =BS24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =BS24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =BP24-BS24 =BV24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =BV24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23)
=BP25*$BS$10 =BS25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =BS25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =BP25-BS25 =BV25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =BV25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24)
=BP26*$BS$10 =BS26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =BS26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =BP26-BS26 =BV26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =BV26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25)
=BP27*$BS$10 =BS27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =BS27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =BP27-BS27 =BV27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =BV27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26)
=BP28*$BS$10 =BS28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =BS28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =BP28-BS28 =BV28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =BV28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27)
=BP29*$BS$10 =BS29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =BS29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =BP29-BS29 =BV29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =BV29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28)
=BP30*$BS$10 =BS30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =BS30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =BP30-BS30 =BV30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =BV30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29)
=BP31*$BS$10 =BS31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =BS31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =BP31-BS31 =BV31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =BV31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30)
=BP32*$BS$10 =BS32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =BS32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =BP32-BS32 =BV32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =BV32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31)
=BP33*$BS$10 =BS33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =BS33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =BP33-BS33 =BV33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =BV33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32)
=BP34*$BS$10 =BS34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =BS34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =BP34-BS34 =BV34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =BV34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33)
=BP35*$BS$10 =BS35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =BS35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =BP35-BS35 =BV35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =BV35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34)
Residue to compostingDiversion of Municipal Waste from landfill via AD
224
Percentage of Municipal
Waste recovery by AD
(Percentage) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
=BX7+1 =BY7+1 =CA7+1 =CB7+1 =CC7+1 =CD7+1 =CE7+1
Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste
=BS11/'Summary sheet'!F10 ='Input sheet'!R11 =CA11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =CA11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10) =CA11*$CD$10 =CD11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =CD11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10)
=BS12/'Summary sheet'!F11 ='Input sheet'!R12 =CA12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =CA12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =CA12*$CD$10 =CD12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =CD12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11)
=BS13/'Summary sheet'!F12 ='Input sheet'!R13 =CA13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =CA13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =CA13*$CD$10 =CD13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =CD13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12)
=BS14/'Summary sheet'!F13 ='Input sheet'!R14 =CA14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =CA14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =CA14*$CD$10 =CD14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =CD14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13)
=BS15/'Summary sheet'!F14 ='Input sheet'!R15 =CA15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =CA15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =CA15*$CD$10 =CD15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =CD15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14)
=BS16/'Summary sheet'!F15 ='Input sheet'!R16 =CA16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =CA16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =CA16*$CD$10 =CD16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =CD16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15)
=BS17/'Summary sheet'!F16 ='Input sheet'!R17 =CA17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =CA17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =CA17*$CD$10 =CD17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =CD17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16)
=BS18/'Summary sheet'!F17 ='Input sheet'!R18 =CA18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =CA18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =CA18*$CD$10 =CD18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =CD18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17)
=BS19/'Summary sheet'!F18 ='Input sheet'!R19 =CA19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =CA19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =CA19*$CD$10 =CD19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =CD19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18)
=BS20/'Summary sheet'!F19 ='Input sheet'!R20 =CA20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =CA20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =CA20*$CD$10 =CD20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =CD20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19)
=BS21/'Summary sheet'!F20 ='Input sheet'!R21 =CA21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =CA21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =CA21*$CD$10 =CD21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =CD21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20)
=BS22/'Summary sheet'!F21 ='Input sheet'!R22 =CA22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =CA22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =CA22*$CD$10 =CD22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =CD22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21)
=BS23/'Summary sheet'!F22 ='Input sheet'!R23 =CA23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =CA23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =CA23*$CD$10 =CD23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =CD23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22)
=BS24/'Summary sheet'!F23 ='Input sheet'!R24 =CA24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =CA24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =CA24*$CD$10 =CD24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =CD24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23)
=BS25/'Summary sheet'!F24 ='Input sheet'!R25 =CA25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =CA25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =CA25*$CD$10 =CD25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =CD25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24)
=BS26/'Summary sheet'!F25 ='Input sheet'!R26 =CA26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =CA26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =CA26*$CD$10 =CD26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =CD26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25)
=BS27/'Summary sheet'!F26 ='Input sheet'!R27 =CA27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =CA27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =CA27*$CD$10 =CD27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =CD27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26)
=BS28/'Summary sheet'!F27 ='Input sheet'!R28 =CA28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =CA28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =CA28*$CD$10 =CD28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =CD28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27)
=BS29/'Summary sheet'!F28 ='Input sheet'!R29 =CA29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =CA29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =CA29*$CD$10 =CD29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =CD29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28)
=BS30/'Summary sheet'!F29 ='Input sheet'!R30 =CA30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =CA30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =CA30*$CD$10 =CD30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =CD30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29)
=BS31/'Summary sheet'!F30 ='Input sheet'!R31 =CA31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =CA31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =CA31*$CD$10 =CD31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =CD31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30)
=BS32/'Summary sheet'!F31 ='Input sheet'!R32 =CA32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =CA32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =CA32*$CD$10 =CD32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =CD32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31)
=BS33/'Summary sheet'!F32 ='Input sheet'!R33 =CA33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =CA33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =CA33*$CD$10 =CD33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =CD33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32)
=BS34/'Summary sheet'!F33 ='Input sheet'!R34 =CA34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =CA34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =CA34*$CD$10 =CD34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =CD34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33)
=BS35/'Summary sheet'!F34 ='Input sheet'!R35 =CA35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =CA35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =CA35*$CD$10 =CD35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =CD35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34)
Throughput of EfW 1 Diversion of Municipal Waste from landfill via EfW 1
225
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
=CF7+1 =CG7+1 =CH7+1 =CI7+1 =CJ7+1 =CK7+1
Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste
='Input sheet'!S11 =CG11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =CG11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10) =CG11*$CJ$10 =CJ11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =CJ11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10)
='Input sheet'!S12 =CG12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =CG12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =CG12*$CJ$10 =CJ12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =CJ12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11)
='Input sheet'!S13 =CG13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =CG13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =CG13*$CJ$10 =CJ13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =CJ13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12)
='Input sheet'!S14 =CG14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =CG14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =CG14*$CJ$10 =CJ14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =CJ14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13)
='Input sheet'!S15 =CG15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =CG15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =CG15*$CJ$10 =CJ15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =CJ15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14)
='Input sheet'!S16 =CG16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =CG16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =CG16*$CJ$10 =CJ16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =CJ16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15)
='Input sheet'!S17 =CG17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =CG17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =CG17*$CJ$10 =CJ17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =CJ17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16)
='Input sheet'!S18 =CG18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =CG18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =CG18*$CJ$10 =CJ18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =CJ18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17)
='Input sheet'!S19 =CG19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =CG19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =CG19*$CJ$10 =CJ19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =CJ19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18)
='Input sheet'!S20 =CG20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =CG20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =CG20*$CJ$10 =CJ20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =CJ20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19)
='Input sheet'!S21 =CG21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =CG21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =CG21*$CJ$10 =CJ21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =CJ21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20)
='Input sheet'!S22 =CG22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =CG22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =CG22*$CJ$10 =CJ22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =CJ22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21)
='Input sheet'!S23 =CG23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =CG23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =CG23*$CJ$10 =CJ23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =CJ23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22)
='Input sheet'!S24 =CG24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =CG24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =CG24*$CJ$10 =CJ24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =CJ24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23)
='Input sheet'!S25 =CG25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =CG25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =CG25*$CJ$10 =CJ25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =CJ25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24)
='Input sheet'!S26 =CG26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =CG26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =CG26*$CJ$10 =CJ26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =CJ26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25)
='Input sheet'!S27 =CG27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =CG27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =CG27*$CJ$10 =CJ27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =CJ27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26)
='Input sheet'!S28 =CG28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =CG28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =CG28*$CJ$10 =CJ28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =CJ28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27)
='Input sheet'!S29 =CG29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =CG29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =CG29*$CJ$10 =CJ29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =CJ29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28)
='Input sheet'!S30 =CG30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =CG30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =CG30*$CJ$10 =CJ30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =CJ30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29)
='Input sheet'!S31 =CG31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =CG31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =CG31*$CJ$10 =CJ31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =CJ31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30)
='Input sheet'!S32 =CG32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =CG32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =CG32*$CJ$10 =CJ32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =CJ32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31)
='Input sheet'!S33 =CG33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =CG33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =CG33*$CJ$10 =CJ33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =CJ33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32)
='Input sheet'!S34 =CG34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =CG34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =CG34*$CJ$10 =CJ34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =CJ34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33)
='Input sheet'!S35 =CG35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =CG35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =CG35*$CJ$10 =CJ35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =CJ35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34)
Throughput of EfW 2 Diversion of Municipal Waste from landfill via EfW 2
226
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
=CL7+1 =CM7+1 =CN7+1 =CO7+1 =CP7+1 =CQ7+1
Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste
=CA11*$CM$10 =CM11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =CM11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10) =CM11*$CP$10 =CP11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =CP11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10)
=CA12*$CM$10 =CM12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =CM12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =CM12*$CP$10 =CP12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =CP12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11)
=CA13*$CM$10 =CM13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =CM13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =CM13*$CP$10 =CP13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =CP13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12)
=CA14*$CM$10 =CM14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =CM14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =CM14*$CP$10 =CP14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =CP14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13)
=CA15*$CM$10 =CM15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =CM15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =CM15*$CP$10 =CP15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =CP15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14)
=CA16*$CM$10 =CM16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =CM16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =CM16*$CP$10 =CP16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =CP16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15)
=CA17*$CM$10 =CM17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =CM17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =CM17*$CP$10 =CP17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =CP17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16)
=CA18*$CM$10 =CM18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =CM18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =CM18*$CP$10 =CP18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =CP18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17)
=CA19*$CM$10 =CM19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =CM19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =CM19*$CP$10 =CP19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =CP19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18)
=CA20*$CM$10 =CM20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =CM20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =CM20*$CP$10 =CP20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =CP20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19)
=CA21*$CM$10 =CM21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =CM21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =CM21*$CP$10 =CP21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =CP21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20)
=CA22*$CM$10 =CM22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =CM22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =CM22*$CP$10 =CP22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =CP22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21)
=CA23*$CM$10 =CM23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =CM23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =CM23*$CP$10 =CP23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =CP23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22)
=CA24*$CM$10 =CM24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =CM24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =CM24*$CP$10 =CP24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =CP24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23)
=CA25*$CM$10 =CM25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =CM25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =CM25*$CP$10 =CP25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =CP25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24)
=CA26*$CM$10 =CM26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =CM26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =CM26*$CP$10 =CP26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =CP26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25)
=CA27*$CM$10 =CM27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =CM27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =CM27*$CP$10 =CP27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =CP27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26)
=CA28*$CM$10 =CM28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =CM28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =CM28*$CP$10 =CP28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =CP28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27)
=CA29*$CM$10 =CM29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =CM29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =CM29*$CP$10 =CP29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =CP29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28)
=CA30*$CM$10 =CM30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =CM30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =CM30*$CP$10 =CP30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =CP30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29)
=CA31*$CM$10 =CM31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =CM31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =CM31*$CP$10 =CP31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =CP31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30)
=CA32*$CM$10 =CM32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =CM32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =CM32*$CP$10 =CP32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =CP32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31)
=CA33*$CM$10 =CM33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =CM33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =CM33*$CP$10 =CP33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =CP33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32)
=CA34*$CM$10 =CM34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =CM34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =CM34*$CP$10 =CP34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =CP34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33)
=CA35*$CM$10 =CM35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =CM35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =CM35*$CP$10 =CP35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =CP35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34)
EFW 1 Base ash to landfill (INACTIVE WASTE)EFW 1 Base ash arising
227
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
=CR7+1 =CS7+1 =CT7+1 =CU7+1 =CV7+1 =CW7+1
Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste
=CM11*$CS$10 =CS11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =CS11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10) =CG11*$CV$10 =CV11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =CV11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$F10)
=CM12*$CS$10 =CS12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =CS12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =CG12*$CV$10 =CV12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =CV12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$F11)
=CM13*$CS$10 =CS13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =CS13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =CG13*$CV$10 =CV13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =CV13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$F12)
=CM14*$CS$10 =CS14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =CS14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =CG14*$CV$10 =CV14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =CV14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$F13)
=CM15*$CS$10 =CS15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =CS15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =CG15*$CV$10 =CV15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =CV15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$F14)
=CM16*$CS$10 =CS16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =CS16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =CG16*$CV$10 =CV16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =CV16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$F15)
=CM17*$CS$10 =CS17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =CS17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =CV17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =CV17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$F16)
=CM18*$CS$10 =CS18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =CS18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =CG18*$CV$10 =CV18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =CV18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$F17)
=CM19*$CS$10 =CS19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =CS19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =CG19*$CV$10 =CV19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =CV19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$F18)
=CM20*$CS$10 =CS20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =CS20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =CG20*$CV$10 =CV20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =CV20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$F19)
=CM21*$CS$10 =CS21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =CS21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =CG21*$CV$10 =CV21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =CV21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$F20)
=CM22*$CS$10 =CS22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =CS22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =CG22*$CV$10 =CV22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =CV22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$F21)
=CM23*$CS$10 =CS23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =CS23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =CG23*$CV$10 =CV23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =CV23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$F22)
=CM24*$CS$10 =CS24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =CS24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =CG24*$CV$10 =CV24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =CV24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$F23)
=CM25*$CS$10 =CS25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =CS25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =CG25*$CV$10 =CV25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =CV25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$F24)
=CM26*$CS$10 =CS26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =CS26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =CG26*$CV$10 =CV26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =CV26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$F25)
=CM27*$CS$10 =CS27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =CS27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =CG27*$CV$10 =CV27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =CV27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$F26)
=CM28*$CS$10 =CS28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =CS28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =CG28*$CV$10 =CV28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =CV28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$F27)
=CM29*$CS$10 =CS29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =CS29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =CG29*$CV$10 =CV29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =CV29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$F28)
=CM30*$CS$10 =CS30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =CS30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =CG30*$CV$10 =CV30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =CV30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$F29)
=CM31*$CS$10 =CS31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =CS31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =CG31*$CV$10 =CV31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =CV31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$F30)
=CM32*$CS$10 =CS32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =CS32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =CG32*$CV$10 =CV32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =CV32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$F31)
=CM33*$CS$10 =CS33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =CS33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =CG33*$CV$10 =CV33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =CV33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$F32)
=CM34*$CS$10 =CS34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =CS34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =CG34*$CV$10 =CV34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =CV34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$F33)
=CM35*$CS$10 =CS35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =CS35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =CG35*$CV$10 =CV35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =CV35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$F34)
EFW 1 Base ash to Beneficial Use EFW 2 Base ash arising
228
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
=CX7+1 =CY7+1 =CZ7+1 =DA7+1 =DB7+1 =DC7+1
Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste
=CV11*$CY$10 =CY11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =CY11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =CV11*$DB$10 =DB11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$F10) =DB11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$F10)
=CV12*$CY$10 =CY12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =CY12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$F11) =CV12*$DB$10 =DB12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =DB12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$F11)
=CV13*$CY$10 =CY13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =CY13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$F12) =CV13*$DB$10 =DB13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =DB13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$F12)
=CV14*$CY$10 =CY14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =CY14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$F13) =CV14*$DB$10 =DB14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =DB14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$F13)
=CV15*$CY$10 =CY15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =CY15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$F14) =CV15*$DB$10 =DB15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =DB15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$F14)
=CV16*$CY$10 =CY16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =CY16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$F15) =CV16*$DB$10 =DB16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =DB16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$F15)
=CV17*$CY$10 =CY17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =CY17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$F16) =CV17*$DB$10 =DB17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =DB17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$F16)
=CV18*$CY$10 =CY18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =CY18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$F17) =CV18*$DB$10 =DB18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =DB18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$F17)
=CV19*$CY$10 =CY19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =CY19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$F18) =CV19*$DB$10 =DB19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =DB19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$F18)
=CV20*$CY$10 =CY20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =CY20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$F19) =CV20*$DB$10 =DB20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =DB20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$F19)
=CV21*$CY$10 =CY21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =CY21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$F20) =CV21*$DB$10 =DB21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =DB21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$F20)
=CV22*$CY$10 =CY22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =CY22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$F21) =CV22*$DB$10 =DB22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =DB22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$F21)
=CV23*$CY$10 =CY23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =CY23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$F22) =CV23*$DB$10 =DB23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =DB23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$F22)
=CV24*$CY$10 =CY24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =CY24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$F23) =CV24*$DB$10 =DB24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =DB24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$F23)
=CV25*$CY$10 =CY25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =CY25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$F24) =CV25*$DB$10 =DB25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =DB25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$F24)
=CV26*$CY$10 =CY26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =CY26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$F25) =CV26*$DB$10 =DB26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =DB26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$F25)
=CV27*$CY$10 =CY27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =CY27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$F26) =CV27*$DB$10 =DB27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =DB27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$F26)
=CV28*$CY$10 =CY28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =CY28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$F27) =CV28*$DB$10 =DB28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =DB28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$F27)
=CV29*$CY$10 =CY29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =CY29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$F28) =CV29*$DB$10 =DB29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =DB29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$F28)
=CV30*$CY$10 =CY30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =CY30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$F29) =CV30*$DB$10 =DB30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =DB30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$F29)
=CV31*$CY$10 =CY31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =CY31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$F30) =CV31*$DB$10 =DB31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =DB31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$F30)
=CV32*$CY$10 =CY32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =CY32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$F31) =CV32*$DB$10 =DB32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =DB32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$F31)
=CV33*$CY$10 =CY33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =CY33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$F32) =CV33*$DB$10 =DB33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =DB33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$F32)
=CV34*$CY$10 =CY34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =CY34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$F33) =CV34*$DB$10 =DB34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =DB34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$F33)
=CV35*$CY$10 =CY35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =CY35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$F34) =CV35*$DB$10 =DB35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =DB35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$F34)
EFW 2 Base ash to landfill (INACTIVE WASTE) EFW 2 Base ash to Beneficial Use
229
Base ash To landfillThird party Waste arising
outside of contract
Third party Recovered
outside of contract
Percentage of Municipal
Waste stream that is diverted
by Third Party
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
=DH7+1 =DD7+1 =DF7+1 =DG7+1 =DE7+1 =DI7+1 =DJ7+1 =DL7+1 =DN7+1 =DO7+1 =DP7+1
Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Contract Household
Waste
Contract Waste other
than Household Waste Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste
Contract Waste other than
Household Waste
=CP11+CY11 =CS11+DB11 =CT11+DC11 =CU11+DD11 =CA11*$DI$10 =CG11*$DJ$10 =BC11+BL11 =BC11+BM11 =DM11/'Summary sheet'!F10 =CA11+CG11+BP11 =CB11+CH11+BQ11 =CC11+CI11+BR11
=CP12+CY12 =CS12+DB12 =CT12+DC12 =CU12+DD12 =CA12*$DI$10 =CG12*$DJ$10 =BC12+BL12 =BC12+BM12 =DM12/'Summary sheet'!F11 =CA12+CG12+BP12 =CB12+CH12+BQ12 =CC12+CI12+BR12
=CP13+CY13 =CS13+DB13 =CT13+DC13 =CU13+DD13 =CA13*$DI$10 =CG13*$DJ$10 =BC13+BL13 =BC13+BM13 =DM13/'Summary sheet'!F12 =CA13+CG13+BP13 =CB13+CH13+BQ13 =CC13+CI13+BR13
=CP14+CY14 =CS14+DB14 =CT14+DC14 =CU14+DD14 =CA14*$DI$10 =CG14*$DJ$10 =BC14+BL14 =BC14+BM14 =DM14/'Summary sheet'!F13 =CA14+CG14+BP14 =CB14+CH14+BQ14 =CC14+CI14+BR14
=CP15+CY15 =CS15+DB15 =CT15+DC15 =CU15+DD15 =CA15*$DI$10 =CG15*$DJ$10 =BC15+BL15 =BC15+BM15 =DM15/'Summary sheet'!F14 =CA15+CG15+BP15 =CB15+CH15+BQ15 =CC15+CI15+BR15
=CP16+CY16 =CS16+DB16 =CT16+DC16 =CU16+DD16 =CA16*$DI$10 =CG16*$DJ$10 =BC16+BL16 =BC16+BM16 =DM16/'Summary sheet'!F15 =CA16+CG16+BP16 =CB16+CH16+BQ16 =CC16+CI16+BR16
=CP17+CY17 =CS17+DB17 =CT17+DC17 =CU17+DD17 =CA17*$DI$10 =CG17*$DJ$10 =BC17+BL17 =BC17+BM17 =DM17/'Summary sheet'!F16 =CA17+CG17+BP17 =CB17+CH17+BQ17 =CC17+CI17+BR17
=CP18+CY18 =CS18+DB18 =CT18+DC18 =CU18+DD18 =CA18*$DI$10 =CG18*$DJ$10 =BC18+BL18 =BC18+BM18 =DM18/'Summary sheet'!F17 =CA18+CG18+BP18 =CB18+CH18+BQ18 =CC18+CI18+BR18
=CP19+CY19 =CS19+DB19 =CT19+DC19 =CU19+DD19 =CA19*$DI$10 =CG19*$DJ$10 =BC19+BL19 =BC19+BM19 =DM19/'Summary sheet'!F18 =CA19+CG19+BP19 =CB19+CH19+BQ19 =CC19+CI19+BR19
=CP20+CY20 =CS20+DB20 =CT20+DC20 =CU20+DD20 =CA20*$DI$10 =CG20*$DJ$10 =BC20+BL20 =BC20+BM20 =DM20/'Summary sheet'!F19 =CA20+CG20+BP20 =CB20+CH20+BQ20 =CC20+CI20+BR20
=CP21+CY21 =CS21+DB21 =CT21+DC21 =CU21+DD21 =CA21*$DI$10 =CG21*$DJ$10 =BC21+BL21 =BC21+BM21 =DM21/'Summary sheet'!F20 =CA21+CG21+BP21 =CB21+CH21+BQ21 =CC21+CI21+BR21
=CP22+CY22 =CS22+DB22 =CT22+DC22 =CU22+DD22 =CA22*$DI$10 =CG22*$DJ$10 =BC22+BL22 =BC22+BM22 =DM22/'Summary sheet'!F21 =CA22+CG22+BP22 =CB22+CH22+BQ22 =CC22+CI22+BR22
=CP23+CY23 =CS23+DB23 =CT23+DC23 =CU23+DD23 =CA23*$DI$10 =CG23*$DJ$10 =BC23+BL23 =BC23+BM23 =DM23/'Summary sheet'!F22 =CA23+CG23+BP23 =CB23+CH23+BQ23 =CC23+CI23+BR23
=CP24+CY24 =CS24+DB24 =CT24+DC24 =CU24+DD24 =CA24*$DI$10 =CG24*$DJ$10 =BC24+BL24 =BC24+BM24 =DM24/'Summary sheet'!F23 =CA24+CG24+BP24 =CB24+CH24+BQ24 =CC24+CI24+BR24
=CP25+CY25 =CS25+DB25 =CT25+DC25 =CU25+DD25 =CA25*$DI$10 =CG25*$DJ$10 =BC25+BL25 =BC25+BM25 =DM25/'Summary sheet'!F24 =CA25+CG25+BP25 =CB25+CH25+BQ25 =CC25+CI25+BR25
=CP26+CY26 =CS26+DB26 =CT26+DC26 =CU26+DD26 =CA26*$DI$10 =CG26*$DJ$10 =BC26+BL26 =BC26+BM26 =DM26/'Summary sheet'!F25 =CA26+CG26+BP26 =CB26+CH26+BQ26 =CC26+CI26+BR26
=CP27+CY27 =CS27+DB27 =CT27+DC27 =CU27+DD27 =CA27*$DI$10 =CG27*$DJ$10 =BC27+BL27 =BC27+BM27 =DM27/'Summary sheet'!F26 =CA27+CG27+BP27 =CB27+CH27+BQ27 =CC27+CI27+BR27
=CP28+CY28 =CS28+DB28 =CT28+DC28 =CU28+DD28 =CA28*$DI$10 =CG28*$DJ$10 =BC28+BL28 =BC28+BM28 =DM28/'Summary sheet'!F27 =CA28+CG28+BP28 =CB28+CH28+BQ28 =CC28+CI28+BR28
=CP29+CY29 =CS29+DB29 =CT29+DC29 =CU29+DD29 =CA29*$DI$10 =CG29*$DJ$10 =BC29+BL29 =BC29+BM29 =DM29/'Summary sheet'!F28 =CA29+CG29+BP29 =CB29+CH29+BQ29 =CC29+CI29+BR29
=CP30+CY30 =CS30+DB30 =CT30+DC30 =CU30+DD30 =CA30*$DI$10 =CG30*$DJ$10 =BC30+BL30 =BC30+BM30 =DM30/'Summary sheet'!F29 =CA30+CG30+BP30 =CB30+CH30+BQ30 =CC30+CI30+BR30
=CP31+CY31 =CS31+DB31 =CT31+DC31 =CU31+DD31 =CA31*$DI$10 =CG31*$DJ$10 =BC31+BL31 =BC31+BM31 =DM31/'Summary sheet'!F30 =CA31+CG31+BP31 =CB31+CH31+BQ31 =CC31+CI31+BR31
=CP32+CY32 =CS32+DB32 =CT32+DC32 =CU32+DD32 =CA32*$DI$10 =CG32*$DJ$10 =BC32+BL32 =BC32+BM32 =DM32/'Summary sheet'!F31 =CA32+CG32+BP32 =CB32+CH32+BQ32 =CC32+CI32+BR32
=CP33+CY33 =CS33+DB33 =CT33+DC33 =CU33+DD33 =CA33*$DI$10 =CG33*$DJ$10 =BC33+BL33 =BC33+BM33 =DM33/'Summary sheet'!F32 =CA33+CG33+BP33 =CB33+CH33+BQ33 =CC33+CI33+BR33
=CP34+CY34 =CS34+DB34 =CT34+DC34 =CU34+DD34 =CA34*$DI$10 =CG34*$DJ$10 =BC34+BL34 =BC34+BM34 =DM34/'Summary sheet'!F33 =CA34+CG34+BP34 =CB34+CH34+BQ34 =CC34+CI34+BR34
=CP35+CY35 =CS35+DB35 =CT35+DC35 =CU35+DD35 =CA35*$DI$10 =CG35*$DJ$10 =BC35+BL35 =BC35+BM35 =DM35/'Summary sheet'!F34 =CA35+CG35+BP35 =CB35+CH35+BQ35 =CC35+CI35+BR35
(tonnes)
Fly ash to landfill Total throughput of Municipal (Contract) Waste through Energy Recovery facilitiesProcess waste residues put to beneficial use
230
Percentage of Municipal (Contract)
Waste stream recovered by Energy
Recovery
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (Percentage) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
=DQ7+1 =DR7+1 =DS7+1 =DT7+1 =DU7+1 =DW7+1 =DX7+1 =DY7+1
Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Waste other than
Household Waste Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste
Contract Waste other than
Household Waste Third Party Waste
=CD11+CJ11+BS11 =BT11+CE11+CK11 =BU11+CF11+CL11 =DR11/'Summary sheet'!F10 =BF11+DR11 =BG11+DS11 =BH11+DT11 =DM11
=CD12+CJ12+BS12 =BT12+CE12+CK12 =BU12+CF12+CL12 =DR12/'Summary sheet'!F11 =BF12+DR12 =BG12+DS12 =BH12+DT12 =DM12
=CD13+CJ13+BS13 =BT13+CE13+CK13 =BU13+CF13+CL13 =DR13/'Summary sheet'!F12 =BF13+DR13 =BG13+DS13 =BH13+DT13 =DM13
=CD14+CJ14+BS14 =BT14+CE14+CK14 =BU14+CF14+CL14 =DR14/'Summary sheet'!F13 =BF14+DR14 =BG14+DS14 =BH14+DT14 =DM14
=CD15+CJ15+BS15 =BT15+CE15+CK15 =BU15+CF15+CL15 =DR15/'Summary sheet'!F14 =BF15+DR15 =BG15+DS15 =BH15+DT15 =DM15
=CD16+CJ16+BS16 =BT16+CE16+CK16 =BU16+CF16+CL16 =DR16/'Summary sheet'!F15 =BF16+DR16 =BG16+DS16 =BH16+DT16 =DM16
=CD17+CJ17+BS17 =BT17+CE17+CK17 =BU17+CF17+CL17 =DR17/'Summary sheet'!F16 =BF17+DR17 =BG17+DS17 =BH17+DT17 =DM17
=CD18+CJ18+BS18 =BT18+CE18+CK18 =BU18+CF18+CL18 =DR18/'Summary sheet'!F17 =BF18+DR18 =BG18+DS18 =BH18+DT18 =DM18
=CD19+CJ19+BS19 =BT19+CE19+CK19 =BU19+CF19+CL19 =DR19/'Summary sheet'!F18 =BF19+DR19 =BG19+DS19 =BH19+DT19 =DM19
=CD20+CJ20+BS20 =BT20+CE20+CK20 =BU20+CF20+CL20 =DR20/'Summary sheet'!F19 =BF20+DR20 =BG20+DS20 =BH20+DT20 =DM20
=CD21+CJ21+BS21 =BT21+CE21+CK21 =BU21+CF21+CL21 =DR21/'Summary sheet'!F20 =BF21+DR21 =BG21+DS21 =BH21+DT21 =DM21
=CD22+CJ22+BS22 =BT22+CE22+CK22 =BU22+CF22+CL22 =DR22/'Summary sheet'!F21 =BF22+DR22 =BG22+DS22 =BH22+DT22 =DM22
=CD23+CJ23+BS23 =BT23+CE23+CK23 =BU23+CF23+CL23 =DR23/'Summary sheet'!F22 =BF23+DR23 =BG23+DS23 =BH23+DT23 =DM23
=CD24+CJ24+BS24 =BT24+CE24+CK24 =BU24+CF24+CL24 =DR24/'Summary sheet'!H23 =BF24+DR24 =BG24+DS24 =BH24+DT24 =DM24
=CD25+CJ25+BS25 =BT25+CE25+CK25 =BU25+CF25+CL25 =DR25/'Summary sheet'!H24 =BF25+DR25 =BG25+DS25 =BH25+DT25 =DM25
=CD26+CJ26+BS26 =BT26+CE26+CK26 =BU26+CF26+CL26 =DR26/'Summary sheet'!H25 =BF26+DR26 =BG26+DS26 =BH26+DT26 =DM26
=CD27+CJ27+BS27 =BT27+CE27+CK27 =BU27+CF27+CL27 =DR27/'Summary sheet'!H26 =BF27+DR27 =BG27+DS27 =BH27+DT27 =DM27
=CD28+CJ28+BS28 =BT28+CE28+CK28 =BU28+CF28+CL28 =DR28/'Summary sheet'!H27 =BF28+DR28 =BG28+DS28 =BH28+DT28 =DM28
=CD29+CJ29+BS29 =BT29+CE29+CK29 =BU29+CF29+CL29 =DR29/'Summary sheet'!H28 =BF29+DR29 =BG29+DS29 =BH29+DT29 =DM29
=CD30+CJ30+BS30 =BT30+CE30+CK30 =BU30+CF30+CL30 =DR30/'Summary sheet'!H29 =BF30+DR30 =BG30+DS30 =BH30+DT30 =DM30
=CD31+CJ31+BS31 =BT31+CE31+CK31 =BU31+CF31+CL31 =DR31/'Summary sheet'!H30 =BF31+DR31 =BG31+DS31 =BH31+DT31 =DM31
=CD32+CJ32+BS32 =BT32+CE32+CK32 =BU32+CF32+CL32 =DR32/'Summary sheet'!H31 =BF32+DR32 =BG32+DS32 =BH32+DT32 =DM32
=CD33+CJ33+BS33 =BT33+CE33+CK33 =BU33+CF33+CL33 =DR33/'Summary sheet'!H32 =BF33+DR33 =BG33+DS33 =BH33+DT33 =DM33
=CD34+CJ34+BS34 =BT34+CE34+CK34 =BU34+CF34+CL34 =DR34/'Summary sheet'!H33 =BF34+DR34 =BG34+DS34 =BH34+DT34 =DM34
=CD35+CJ35+BS35 =BT35+CE35+CK35 =BU35+CF35+CL35 =DR35/'Summary sheet'!H34 =BF35+DR35 =BG35+DS35 =BH35+DT35 =DM35
Diversion of Municipal (Contract) Waste from landfill via Energy Recovery facilities Total Municipal (Contract) recovered
231
Total percentage of Municipal
(Contract) Waste stream
recovered
Diversion of Municipal Waste from
landfill
Total amount of Waste going
to landfill out of county
(Horton)
Total percentage of Waste
being landfilled out of
county
(Percentage) (tonnes) (tonnes) (Percentage) (tonnes) (Percentage)
=DZ7+1 =EA7+1 =EC7+1 =EC7+1 =ED7+1 =EF7+1
Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal Waste
=DW11/'Summary sheet'!F10 =DF11+DW11 =344000-298000 =ED11/'Summary sheet'!F10=DL11-DM11 =EF11/'Summary sheet'!F10
=DW12/'Summary sheet'!F11 =DF12+DW12 =344000-298000 =ED12/'Summary sheet'!F11=DL12-DM12 =EF12/'Summary sheet'!F11
=DW13/'Summary sheet'!F12 =DF13+DW13 =344000-298000 =ED13/'Summary sheet'!F12=DL13-DM13 =EF13/'Summary sheet'!F12
=DW14/'Summary sheet'!F13 =DF14+DW14 0 0 =DL14-DM14 =EF14/'Summary sheet'!F13
=DW15/'Summary sheet'!F14 =DF15+DW15 0 0 =DL15-DM15 =EF15/'Summary sheet'!F14
=DW16/'Summary sheet'!F15 =DF16+DW16 0 0 =DL16-DM16 =EF16/'Summary sheet'!F15
=DW17/'Summary sheet'!F16 =DF17+DW17 0 0 =DL17-DM17 =EF17/'Summary sheet'!F16
=DW18/'Summary sheet'!F17 =DF18+DW18 0 0 =DL18-DM18 =EF18/'Summary sheet'!F17
=DW19/'Summary sheet'!F18 =DF19+DW19 0 0 =DL19-DM19 =EF19/'Summary sheet'!F18
=DW20/'Summary sheet'!F19 =DF20+DW20 0 0 =DL20-DM20 =EF20/'Summary sheet'!F19
=DW21/'Summary sheet'!F20 =DF21+DW21 0 0 =DL21-DM21 =EF21/'Summary sheet'!F20
=DW22/'Summary sheet'!F21 =DF22+DW22 0 0 =DL22-DM22 =EF22/'Summary sheet'!F21
=DW23/'Summary sheet'!F22 =DF23+DW23 0 0 =DL23-DM23 =EF23/'Summary sheet'!F22
=DW24/'Summary sheet'!H23 =DF24+DW24 0 0 =DL24-DM24 =EF24/'Summary sheet'!F23
=DW25/'Summary sheet'!H24 =DF25+DW25 0 0 =DL25-DM25 =EF25/'Summary sheet'!F24
=DW26/'Summary sheet'!H25 =DF26+DW26 0 0 =DL26-DM26 =EF26/'Summary sheet'!F25
=DW27/'Summary sheet'!H26 =DF27+DW27 0 0 =DL27-DM27 =EF27/'Summary sheet'!F26
=DW28/'Summary sheet'!H27 =DF28+DW28 0 0 =DL28-DM28 =EF28/'Summary sheet'!F27
=DW29/'Summary sheet'!H28 =DF29+DW29 0 0 =DL29-DM29 =EF29/'Summary sheet'!F28
=DW30/'Summary sheet'!H29 =DF30+DW30 0 0 =DL30-DM30 =EF30/'Summary sheet'!F29
=DW31/'Summary sheet'!H30 =DF31+DW31 0 0 =DL31-DM31 =EF31/'Summary sheet'!F30
=DW32/'Summary sheet'!H31 =DF32+DW32 0 0 =DL32-DM32 =EF32/'Summary sheet'!F31
=DW33/'Summary sheet'!H32 =DF33+DW33 0 0 =DL33-DM33 =EF33/'Summary sheet'!F32
=DW34/'Summary sheet'!H33 =DF34+DW34 0 0 =DL34-DM34 =EF34/'Summary sheet'!F33
=DW35/'Summary sheet'!H34 =DF35+DW35 0 0 =DL35-DM35 =EF35/'Summary sheet'!F34
Third Party Waste to Landfill
232
(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
=EG7+1 =EH7+1 =EI7+1 =EJ7+1 =EK7+1 =EL7+1 =EM7+1 =EN7+1 =EO7+1
Total Municipal Waste Contract Household Waste Contract Household Waste
Active waste
Contract Household In active
Waste Contract Waste other than Household Waste
Contract Waste other than
Household Waste Active waste
Contract Waste other than
Household Waste Inacative waste
Total Municipal Waste
Active waste
Total Municipal Waste
Inacative waste
='Summary sheet'!F10-(EC11+EF11) =EH11*('Summary sheet'!$M10/'Summary sheet'!$L10) =EI11-(CQ11+CZ11) =(CQ11+CZ11) =EH11*('Summary sheet'!$N10/'Summary sheet'!$L10) =EL11-(CR11+DA11) =CR11+DA11 =EJ11+EM11 =EK11+EN11
='Summary sheet'!F11-(EC12+EF12) =EH12*('Summary sheet'!$M11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =EI12-(CQ12+CZ12) =(CQ12+CZ12) =EH12*('Summary sheet'!$N11/'Summary sheet'!$L11) =EL12-(CR12+DA12) =CR12+DA12 =EJ12+EM12 =EK12+EN12
='Summary sheet'!F12-(EC13+EF13) =EH13*('Summary sheet'!$M12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =EI13-(CQ13+CZ13) =(CQ13+CZ13) =EH13*('Summary sheet'!$N12/'Summary sheet'!$L12) =EL13-(CR13+DA13) =CR13+DA13 =EJ13+EM13 =EK13+EN13
='Summary sheet'!F13-(EC14+EF14) =EH14*('Summary sheet'!$M13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =EI14-(CQ14+CZ14) =(CQ14+CZ14) =EH14*('Summary sheet'!$N13/'Summary sheet'!$L13) =EL14-(CR14+DA14) =CR14+DA14 =EJ14+EM14 =EK14+EN14
='Summary sheet'!F14-(EC15+EF15) =EH15*('Summary sheet'!$M14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =EI15-(CQ15+CZ15) =(CQ15+CZ15) =EH15*('Summary sheet'!$N14/'Summary sheet'!$L14) =EL15-(CR15+DA15) =CR15+DA15 =EJ15+EM15 =EK15+EN15
='Summary sheet'!F15-(EC16+EF16) =EH16*('Summary sheet'!$M15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =EI16-(CQ16+CZ16) =(CQ16+CZ16) =EH16*('Summary sheet'!$N15/'Summary sheet'!$L15) =EL16-(CR16+DA16) =CR16+DA16 =EJ16+EM16 =EK16+EN16
='Summary sheet'!F16-(EC17+EF17) =EH17*('Summary sheet'!$M16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =EI17-(CQ17+CZ17) =(CQ17+CZ17) =EH17*('Summary sheet'!$N16/'Summary sheet'!$L16) =EL17-(CR17+DA17) =CR17+DA17 =EJ17+EM17 =EK17+EN17
='Summary sheet'!F17-(EC18+EF18) =EH18*('Summary sheet'!$M17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =EI18-(CQ18+CZ18) =(CQ18+CZ18) =EH18*('Summary sheet'!$N17/'Summary sheet'!$L17) =EL18-(CR18+DA18) =CR18+DA18 =EJ18+EM18 =EK18+EN18
='Summary sheet'!F18-(EC19+EF19) =EH19*('Summary sheet'!$M18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =EI19-(CQ19+CZ19) =(CQ19+CZ19) =EH19*('Summary sheet'!$N18/'Summary sheet'!$L18) =EL19-(CR19+DA19) =CR19+DA19 =EJ19+EM19 =EK19+EN19
='Summary sheet'!F19-(EC20+EF20) =EH20*('Summary sheet'!$M19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =EI20-(CQ20+CZ20) =(CQ20+CZ20) =EH20*('Summary sheet'!$N19/'Summary sheet'!$L19) =EL20-(CR20+DA20) =CR20+DA20 =EJ20+EM20 =EK20+EN20
='Summary sheet'!F20-(EC21+EF21) =EH21*('Summary sheet'!$M20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =EI21-(CQ21+CZ21) =(CQ21+CZ21) =EH21*('Summary sheet'!$N20/'Summary sheet'!$L20) =EL21-(CR21+DA21) =CR21+DA21 =EJ21+EM21 =EK21+EN21
='Summary sheet'!F21-(EC22+EF22) =EH22*('Summary sheet'!$M21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =EI22-(CQ22+CZ22) =(CQ22+CZ22) =EH22*('Summary sheet'!$N21/'Summary sheet'!$L21) =EL22-(CR22+DA22) =CR22+DA22 =EJ22+EM22 =EK22+EN22
='Summary sheet'!F22-(EC23+EF23) =EH23*('Summary sheet'!$M22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =EI23-(CQ23+CZ23) =(CQ23+CZ23) =EH23*('Summary sheet'!$N22/'Summary sheet'!$L22) =EL23-(CR23+DA23) =CR23+DA23 =EJ23+EM23 =EK23+EN23
='Summary sheet'!F23-(EC24+EF24) =EH24*('Summary sheet'!$M23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =EI24-(CQ24+CZ24) =(CQ24+CZ24) =EH24*('Summary sheet'!$N23/'Summary sheet'!$L23) =EL24-(CR24+DA24) =CR24+DA24 =EJ24+EM24 =EK24+EN24
='Summary sheet'!F24-(EC25+EF25) =EH25*('Summary sheet'!$M24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =EI25-(CQ25+CZ25) =(CQ25+CZ25) =EH25*('Summary sheet'!$N24/'Summary sheet'!$L24) =EL25-(CR25+DA25) =CR25+DA25 =EJ25+EM25 =EK25+EN25
='Summary sheet'!F25-(EC26+EF26) =EH26*('Summary sheet'!$M25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =EI26-(CQ26+CZ26) =(CQ26+CZ26) =EH26*('Summary sheet'!$N25/'Summary sheet'!$L25) =EL26-(CR26+DA26) =CR26+DA26 =EJ26+EM26 =EK26+EN26
='Summary sheet'!F26-(EC27+EF27) =EH27*('Summary sheet'!$M26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =EI27-(CQ27+CZ27) =(CQ27+CZ27) =EH27*('Summary sheet'!$N26/'Summary sheet'!$L26) =EL27-(CR27+DA27) =CR27+DA27 =EJ27+EM27 =EK27+EN27
='Summary sheet'!F27-(EC28+EF28) =EH28*('Summary sheet'!$M27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =EI28-(CQ28+CZ28) =(CQ28+CZ28) =EH28*('Summary sheet'!$N27/'Summary sheet'!$L27) =EL28-(CR28+DA28) =CR28+DA28 =EJ28+EM28 =EK28+EN28
='Summary sheet'!F28-(EC29+EF29) =EH29*('Summary sheet'!$M28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =EI29-(CQ29+CZ29) =(CQ29+CZ29) =EH29*('Summary sheet'!$N28/'Summary sheet'!$L28) =EL29-(CR29+DA29) =CR29+DA29 =EJ29+EM29 =EK29+EN29
='Summary sheet'!F29-(EC30+EF30) =EH30*('Summary sheet'!$M29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =EI30-(CQ30+CZ30) =(CQ30+CZ30) =EH30*('Summary sheet'!$N29/'Summary sheet'!$L29) =EL30-(CR30+DA30) =CR30+DA30 =EJ30+EM30 =EK30+EN30
='Summary sheet'!F30-(EC31+EF31) =EH31*('Summary sheet'!$M30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =EI31-(CQ31+CZ31) =(CQ31+CZ31) =EH31*('Summary sheet'!$N30/'Summary sheet'!$L30) =EL31-(CR31+DA31) =CR31+DA31 =EJ31+EM31 =EK31+EN31
='Summary sheet'!F31-(EC32+EF32) =EH32*('Summary sheet'!$M31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =EI32-(CQ32+CZ32) =(CQ32+CZ32) =EH32*('Summary sheet'!$N31/'Summary sheet'!$L31) =EL32-(CR32+DA32) =CR32+DA32 =EJ32+EM32 =EK32+EN32
='Summary sheet'!F32-(EC33+EF33) =EH33*('Summary sheet'!$M32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =EI33-(CQ33+CZ33) =(CQ33+CZ33) =EH33*('Summary sheet'!$N32/'Summary sheet'!$L32) =EL33-(CR33+DA33) =CR33+DA33 =EJ33+EM33 =EK33+EN33
='Summary sheet'!F33-(EC34+EF34) =EH34*('Summary sheet'!$M33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =EI34-(CQ34+CZ34) =(CQ34+CZ34) =EH34*('Summary sheet'!$N33/'Summary sheet'!$L33) =EL34-(CR34+DA34) =CR34+DA34 =EJ34+EM34 =EK34+EN34
='Summary sheet'!F34-(EC35+EF35) =EH35*('Summary sheet'!$M34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =EI35-(CQ35+CZ35) =(CQ35+CZ35) =EH35*('Summary sheet'!$N34/'Summary sheet'!$L34) =EL35-(CR35+DA35) =CR35+DA35 =EJ35+EM35 =EK35+EN35
Total amount of Contract Waste going to landfill
233
Percentage of Waste Landfilled
Total void space needed per
annum (m3) to include
necessary inert for
engineering
Cumulative total void
space needed
(Percentage) (tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)
=EP7+1 =EQ7+1 =ER7+1 =ES7+1 =ET7+1
Total Municipal Waste
Total Municipal
Waste Active
waste
Total Municipal
Waste
Inacative waste
Total Municipal Waste Total Municipal
Waste
=EH11/'Summary sheet'!F10 =EO11/0.83 =EP11/1.5 =(ER11+ES11)*1.1 =ET11
=EH12/'Summary sheet'!F11 =EO12/0.83 =EP12/1.5 =(ER12+ES12)*1.1 =EU11+ET12
=EH13/'Summary sheet'!F12 =EO13/0.83 =EP13/1.5 =(ER13+ES13)*1.1 =EU12+ET13
=EH14/'Summary sheet'!F13 =EO14/0.83 =EP14/1.5 =(ER14+ES14)*1.1 =EU13+ET14
=EH15/'Summary sheet'!F14 =EO15/0.83 =EP15/1.5 =(ER15+ES15)*1.1 =EU14+ET15
=EH16/'Summary sheet'!F15 =EO16/0.83 =EP16/1.5 =(ER16+ES16)*1.1 =EU15+ET16
=EH17/'Summary sheet'!F16 =EO17/0.83 =EP17/1.5 =(ER17+ES17)*1.1 =EU16+ET17
=EH18/'Summary sheet'!F17 =EO18/0.83 =EP18/1.5 =(ER18+ES18)*1.1 =EU17+ET18
=EH19/'Summary sheet'!F18 =EO19/0.83 =EP19/1.5 =(ER19+ES19)*1.1 =EU18+ET19
=EH20/'Summary sheet'!F19 =EO20/0.83 =EP20/1.5 =(ER20+ES20)*1.1 =EU19+ET20
=EH21/'Summary sheet'!F20 =EO21/0.83 =EP21/1.5 =(ER21+ES21)*1.1 =EU20+ET21
=EH22/'Summary sheet'!F21 =EO22/0.83 =EP22/1.5 =(ER22+ES22)*1.1 =EU21+ET22
=EH23/'Summary sheet'!F22 =EO23/0.83 =EP23/1.5 =(ER23+ES23)*1.1 =EU22+ET23
=EH24/'Summary sheet'!F23 =EO24/0.83 =EP24/1.5 =(ER24+ES24)*1.1 =EU23+ET24
=EH25/'Summary sheet'!F24 =EO25/0.83 =EP25/1.5 =(ER25+ES25)*1.1 =EU24+ET25
=EH26/'Summary sheet'!F25 =EO26/0.83 =EP26/1.5 =(ER26+ES26)*1.1 =EU25+ET26
=EH27/'Summary sheet'!F26 =EO27/0.83 =EP27/1.5 =(ER27+ES27)*1.1 =EU26+ET27
=EH28/'Summary sheet'!F27 =EO28/0.83 =EP28/1.5 =(ER28+ES28)*1.1 =EU27+ET28
=EH29/'Summary sheet'!F28 =EO29/0.83 =EP29/1.5 =(ER29+ES29)*1.1 =EU28+ET29
=EH30/'Summary sheet'!F29 =EO30/0.83 =EP30/1.5 =(ER30+ES30)*1.1 =EU29+ET30
=EH31/'Summary sheet'!F30 =EO31/0.83 =EP31/1.5 =(ER31+ES31)*1.1 =EU30+ET31
=EH32/'Summary sheet'!F31 =EO32/0.83 =EP32/1.5 =(ER32+ES32)*1.1 =EU31+ET32
=EH33/'Summary sheet'!F32 =EO33/0.83 =EP33/1.5 =(ER33+ES33)*1.1 =EU32+ET33
=EH34/'Summary sheet'!F33 =EO34/0.83 =EP34/1.5 =(ER34+ES34)*1.1 =EU33+ET34
=EH35/'Summary sheet'!F34 =EO35/0.83 =EP35/1.5 =(ER35+ES35)*1.1 =EU34+ET35
void space required (m3) per
annum
234
Appendix 6: National LATS Survey
The following sheets are an extract of the questionnaire sent to every WDA in England; there are two sheets, a best case scenario and a
contingency scenario. Both screen shots show a small number of authorities
235
Base
Year
2002/3
MSW
Recovery
rate
2005/6
Recovery
rate
2009/10
Recovery
rate
2015/16
Recovery
rate
20020/21
jpporder Region
LA
Type Local Authority Tonnes Tonnes % age % age % age % age 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10
1 North East U Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council
2 North East U Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council
3 North East U Middlesbrough Borough Council
4 North East U Hartlepool Borough Council
5 North East U Darlington Borough Council
13 North East D Durham County Council
20 North East D Northumberland County Council
21 North East U Sunderland City Council
22 North East U South Tyneside MBC
23 North East U North Tyneside Council
24 North East U Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council MBC
25 North East U Gateshead MBC
26 North West U Warrington Borough Council
29 North West U Halton Borough Council
34 North West D Cheshire County Council
41 North West D Cumbria County Council
42 North West U Wigan MBC
52 North West D Greater Manchester WDA (MBC)
65 North West U Blackpool Borough Council
66 North West U Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council
67 North West D Lancashire County Council
73 North West D Merseyside WDA (MBC)
74 Yorkshire/HumberU East Riding of Yorkshire Council
75 Yorkshire/HumberU Kingston-upon-Hull City Council
76 Yorkshire/HumberU North East Lincolnshire Council
77 Yorkshire/HumberU North Lincolnshire Council
78 Yorkshire/HumberU York City Council
86 Yorkshire/HumberD North Yorkshire County Council
87 Yorkshire/HumberU Sheffield City Council
88 Yorkshire/HumberU Rotherham MBC
89 Yorkshire/HumberU Doncaster MBC
90 Yorkshire/HumberU Barnsley MBC
91 Yorkshire/HumberU Leeds City Council MBC
92 Yorkshire/HumberU Kirklees MBC
93 Yorkshire/HumberU Wakefield City MDC
94 Yorkshire/HumberU Bradford City MDC (MBC)
95 Yorkshire/HumberU Calderdale MBC
96 E Midlands U Derby City Council
For each year, please estimate the tonnes of Biodegradable Municipal Waste likely to be
sent to landfill. If not possible to estimate to 2020, please aim to estimate to 2013/14 if at
all possible. The figure should take into account waste growth.
"BEST CASE SCENARIO". On this sheet, you should
enter the figures you plan to achieve. Please see the
next spreadsheet for 'contingency case scenario'
figures.
236
jpporder Region
LA
Type Local Authority 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
1 North East U Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council
2 North East U Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council
3 North East U Middlesbrough Borough Council
4 North East U Hartlepool Borough Council
5 North East U Darlington Borough Council
13 North East D Durham County Council
20 North East D Northumberland County Council
21 North East U Sunderland City Council
22 North East U South Tyneside MBC
23 North East U North Tyneside Council
24 North East U Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council MBC
25 North East U Gateshead MBC
26 North West U Warrington Borough Council
29 North West U Halton Borough Council
34 North West D Cheshire County Council
41 North West D Cumbria County Council
42 North West U Wigan MBC
52 North West D Greater Manchester WDA (MBC)
65 North West U Blackpool Borough Council
66 North West U Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council
67 North West D Lancashire County Council
73 North West D Merseyside WDA (MBC)
74 Yorkshire/HumberU East Riding of Yorkshire Council
75 Yorkshire/HumberU Kingston-upon-Hull City Council
76 Yorkshire/HumberU North East Lincolnshire Council
77 Yorkshire/HumberU North Lincolnshire Council
78 Yorkshire/HumberU York City Council
86 Yorkshire/HumberD North Yorkshire County Council
87 Yorkshire/HumberU Sheffield City Council
88 Yorkshire/HumberU Rotherham MBC
89 Yorkshire/HumberU Doncaster MBC
90 Yorkshire/HumberU Barnsley MBC
91 Yorkshire/HumberU Leeds City Council MBC
92 Yorkshire/HumberU Kirklees MBC
93 Yorkshire/HumberU Wakefield City MDC
"CONTINGENCY CASE SCENARIO". On this sheet,
you should enter the figures which, if you were
scenario planning for some delays or problems, you
would work with."
For each year, please estimate the tonnes of Biodegradable Municipal Waste likely to be
sent to landfill. If not possible to estimate to 2020, please aim to estimate to 2013/14 if at
all possible. The figure should take into account waste growth.
